+
+<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 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>
+
+ <li><tt>isName()</tt> should be replaced with comparison
+ against <tt>getName()</tt> (this is now efficient).</tt>
+ </ul>
+</li>
+
+<li>The registration interfaces for backend Targets has changed (what was
+previously TargetMachineRegistry). For backend authors, see the <a href="WritingAnLLVMBackend.html#TargetRegistration">Writing An LLVM Backend</a> guide. For clients, the notable API changes are:
+ <ul>
+ <li><tt>TargetMachineRegistry</tt> has been renamed
+ to <tt>TargetRegistry</tt>.</li>
+
+ <li>Clients should move to using the <tt>TargetRegistry::lookupTarget()</tt>
+ function to find targets.</li>
+ </ul>
+</li>
+