Ok, "most clients should be unaffected" was a lie. Add notes on upgrading.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@77050 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8
This commit is contained in:
Daniel Dunbar 2009-07-25 05:26:53 +00:00
parent 6e0d1cb309
commit 8b5ee823c2

View File

@ -460,11 +460,34 @@ API changes are:</p>
<li><tt>SCEVHandle</tt> no longer exists, because reference counting is no
longer done for <tt>SCEV*</tt> objects, instead <tt>const SCEV*</tt> should be
used.</li>
<li>Many APIs, notably <tt>llvm::Value</tt>, now use the <tt>StringRef</tt>
and <tt>Twine</tt> classes instead of passing <tt>const char*</tt>
or <tt>std::string</tt>, as described in
the <a href="ProgrammersManual.html#string_apis">Programmer's Manual</a>. Most
clients should be uneffected by this transition.</li>
clients should be unaffected by this transition, unless they are used to <tt>Value::getName()</tt> returning a string. Here are some tips on updating to 2.6:
<ul>
<li><tt>getNameStr()</tt> is still available, and matches the old
behavior. Replacing <tt>getName()</tt> calls with this is an safe option,
although more efficient alternatives are now possible.</li>
<li>If you were just relying on <tt>getName()</tt> being able to be sent to
a <tt>std::ostream</tt>, consider migrating
to <tt>llvm::raw_ostream</tt>.</li>
<li>If you were using <tt>getName().c_str()</tt> to get a <tt>const
char*</tt> pointer to the name, you can use <tt>getName().data()</tt>.
Note that this string (as before), may not be the entire name if the
name containts embedded null characters.</li>
<li>If you were using operator plus on the result of <tt>getName()</tt> and
treating the result as an <tt>std::string</tt>, you can either
uses <tt>Twine::str</tt> to get the result as an <tt>std::string</tt>, or
could move to a <tt>Twine</tt> based design.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>llvm-dis now fails if output file exists, instead of dumping to stdout.
FIXME: describe any other tool changes due to the raw_fd_ostream change. FIXME:
This is not an API change, maybe there should be a tool changes section?</li>