clang version required for DXR

[Ehsan Akhgari]

I can't find the clang version required for building DXR anywhere in the
docs. I seem to remember that it was 3.2 but I tried downloading the
LLVM3.2 release binaries and it didn't work.

Does anyone know what clang-version I want?

Thanks!
--
Ehsan

[Joshua Cranmer 🐧]

I believe 3.3 is the version currently used, although 3.4 may also work
equally well.

--
Joshua Cranmer
Thunderbird and DXR developer
Source code archæologist

[Noufal Ibrahim KV]

On Sat, Aug 02 2014, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:

> I can't find the clang version required for building DXR anywhere in the
> docs. I seem to remember that it was 3.2 but I tried downloading the
> LLVM3.2 release binaries and it didn't work.
>
> Does anyone know what clang-version I want?

A lot has changed since I wrote this but I had some issues with clang
versions and I wrote about what I did in this commit
https://github.com/mozilla/dxr/commit/32d457d942c3c3730503a1f76cfa40da76294d84

[...]



--
Cordially,
Noufal
http://nibrahim.net.in

[Ehsan Akhgari]

On 2014-08-01, 9:08 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote:
> On 8/1/2014 5:05 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
>> I can't find the clang version required for building DXR anywhere in the
>> docs. I seem to remember that it was 3.2 but I tried downloading the
>> LLVM3.2 release binaries and it didn't work.
>>
>> Does anyone know what clang-version I want?
>
> I believe 3.3 is the version currently used, although 3.4 may also work
> equally well.

Thanks, everyone! One further question, is there anything preventing us
from working with the current clang ToT? Have there been severe API
changes since we wrote this code?

Thanks!
Ehsan

[Erik Rose]

> Thanks, everyone! One further question, is there anything preventing us from working with the current clang ToT? Have there been severe API changes since we wrote this code?

The best way to know is to try. :-) Clang's C++ API changes from minor version to minor version. We've had to add ifdefs every time since 3.2, so my guess is that there have been changes. They don't even try to keep it stable, shunting you to the plain C API (which is less capable) if you want stability. I'd certainly take patches toward top-of-tree support; we're going to need them eventually.

Cheers,
Erik