Hi All, Here's the first draft of the LLVM 1.8 release notes. Please take a look and send me any comments or feedback you have: http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Thanks! -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
misspellings: What's new, 1st paragraph: "nightly tester <http://llvm.org/nightlytest/>, llvm-config enhancEments"; 've found nothing wrong except of it :) On 8/8/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:> > > Hi All, > > Here's the first draft of the LLVM 1.8 release notes. Please take a look > and send me any comments or feedback you have: > http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html > > Thanks! > > -Chris > > -- > http://nondot.org/sabre/ > http://llvm.org/ > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-- The least excusable sin of language syntax is to leave the programmer unsure as to the meaning of his or her program. Not only can that compromise the quality of the software; it can also diminish the quality of a programmer's life. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060808/f479da48/attachment.html>
> misspellings: > What's new, 1st paragraph: "nightly tester <http://llvm.org/nightlytest/>, > llvm-config enhancEments"; > 've found nothing wrong except of it :)Thanks! I've updated it to include your fix and fixes from Gabor Greif. If anyone else notices something or has suggestions for improvements, please let me know (soon) :). -Chris> On 8/8/06, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> Here's the first draft of the LLVM 1.8 release notes. Please take a look >> and send me any comments or feedback you have: >> http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html >> >> Thanks! >> >> -Chris >> >> -- >> http: //nondot.org/sabre/ >> http: //llvm.org/ >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >> > > > >-Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/
On Aug 8, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:> > Hi All, > > Here's the first draft of the LLVM 1.8 release notes. Please take > a look and send me any comments or feedback you have: > http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html >Trivial changes: * Most of LLVM is now built with "-pedantic", ensuring better portability to more C++ Compilers. Probably should be "compilers"? * The PowerPC backend now includes initial 64-bit support. The JIT is not complete, and the static compiler has a couple of known bugs, but support is mostly in place. LLVM 1.9 will include completed PPC-64 support. I would suggest "compete PPC-64 support" instead. * The -cee pass is known to be buggy, and may be removed in in a future release. Remove one of the "in"s. * The following Unix system functionality has not been tested and may not work: "functionalities have" * Zero arg vararg functions are not supported. This should not affect LLVM produced by the C or C++ frontends. This sentence confuses me. Should it be "LLVM bytecode" or some other wording? -bw
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:19:52 -0700, Bil wrote:> > * The following Unix system functionality has not been tested and may > not work: > > "functionalities have" >"functionality" seems more of a substance noun than a thing noun. More like "water" than ike "cup"/ So I think the singular is appropriate here. -- hendrik
Thanks all, I've incorporated all the feedback so far: http://llvm.org/ChrisLLVM/projects/llvm-www/releases/1.8/docs/ReleaseNotes.html -Chris On Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Bil wrote:> On Aug 8, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Here's the first draft of the LLVM 1.8 release notes. Please take a look >> and send me any comments or feedback you have: >> http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html >> > Trivial changes: > > * Most of LLVM is now built with "-pedantic", ensuring better portability to > more C++ Compilers. > > Probably should be "compilers"? > > * The PowerPC backend now includes initial 64-bit support. The JIT is not > complete, and the static compiler has a couple of known bugs, but support is > mostly in place. LLVM 1.9 will include completed PPC-64 support. > > I would suggest "compete PPC-64 support" instead. > > * The -cee pass is known to be buggy, and may be removed in in a future > release. > > Remove one of the "in"s. > > * The following Unix system functionality has not been tested and may not > work: > > "functionalities have" > > * Zero arg vararg functions are not supported. This should not affect LLVM > produced by the C or C++ frontends. > > This sentence confuses me. Should it be "LLVM bytecode" or some other > wording? > > -bw > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >-Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/