Skip to content

Conversation

@joeatodd
Copy link
Contributor

@joeatodd joeatodd commented Sep 12, 2024

This is done to avoid conflict with upper-case macros redefining e.g. SUCCESS.

I'm also bumping to 0.2.0.

This avoids a clash with e.g. `#define SUCCESS 0` in another header
somewhere.
This is a breaking change, but bumping major version would move us out
of Pre-Release, so 0.2.0?
@Alcpz
Copy link
Contributor

Alcpz commented Sep 12, 2024

I'm also bumping to 0.2.0. Though this is a breaking change, which ought to imply a major bump. But we remain in pre-release I believe. @Alcpz thoughts?

I agree with bumping the version.

Nit: Wrt the PR message, I changed the description as that is turned into the commit message of the merge commit, and the quoted part reads as a conversation.

For discussion: Are we certain no one is using these error codes already? We would need to introduce deprecated error_codes otherwise.

@Alcpz Alcpz added the syclcompat Issues related to SYCLcompat label Sep 12, 2024
@Alcpz
Copy link
Contributor

Alcpz commented Sep 13, 2024

After discussion with @joeatodd, let's proceed with the merge as we are still in pre-release

@joeatodd
Copy link
Contributor Author

@intel/llvm-gatekeepers this is ready to merge 🙏 CI failures unrelated

@ldrumm ldrumm merged commit 42b924e into intel:sycl Oct 10, 2024
9 of 11 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

syclcompat Issues related to SYCLcompat

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants