search for: 130497

On 01/07, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > Hey Peter - would you be able to link to/describe the history on this > process/decision. I can find one old thread where this was first proposed ( > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130497.html ) with > some general positive responses and a lot of questions. > > I see there's a flang-dev list, though I'm not sure where code review is > happening (is there flang-commits or equivalent?) as there's not much > chatter on the mailing list that I can see. There...

Hi All, As discussed before Christmas, this is a reminder that we intend to merge flang on the 13th January (next Monday) before the llvm-10 branch. At the moment I'm proposing to do it at 10am GMT. I can be flexible on this point if it requires close coordination with anyone in another timezone, just let me know. Previous discussion was in [llvm-dev] Flang landing in the monorepo

..., Johannes via llvm-dev wrote: > > On 01/07, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hey Peter - would you be able to link to/describe the history on this > process/decision. I can find one old thread where this was first proposed (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130497.html ) with > some general positive responses and a lot of questions. > > I see there's a flang-dev list, though I'm not sure where code review is > happening (is there flang-commits or equivalent?) as there's not much > chatter on the mailing list that I can see. > &g...

On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 06:50, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't really consider this addressed without a plan of action (before merge) that contains a list of standard llvm support libraries that would be used in addition to things being removed (pretty much all use of C++ c* headers and more?) as well as staffing and approximate ETAs. Agreed. > I think

...LLVM project. That is an issue by itself that needs managing, but a different problem from the one you describe here. The problem with F18 being ahead of the rest of the project was discussed at length during the original upstreaming discussion http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130497.html and we agreed to revisit the problem when F18 is part of the project and going more mainstream and see where the rest of the project was in terms of its minimum standard. At that point we can chose what to do. Thanks again for caring about this and your help. Ta Rich [1] https://github.com/...

Hi all Thanks for all the replies and engagement on this issue. First point, given the state of discussions today I would like to propose that we don't start the merge at 10:00 GMT on Monday 13th as proposed and we delay by at least 24 hours until after the scheduled F18 technical call on Monday afternoon. In order to help compile a plan of action, I've tried to compile a list of the