search for: bump

...dler signature for ABI 23 Check ABI major not encoded ABI Chris Lamb (1): Altering the compilation build script to make it reproducible. Dylan Aïssi (2): Fix a spelling error inside via_xv.c Switch to https for all links to freedesktop.org Kevin Brace (270): Version bumped to 0.5.99 viaIGAInitCommon will now initialize certain legacy VGA registers Version bumped to 0.5.100 Accessing CRTC after miscellaneous output register initialization Limiting IGA1 Address Mode Selection bit access to UniChrome Pro or later Limiting IGA2 Address Mod...

...gt;> In October, there was a discussion about updating CMake to 3.15: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136295.html. No decision was made, but maybe we should revisit that proposal? If we're going to require a newer version of CMake for some subprojects, I'd prefer to bump the minimum CMake version for all of LLVM. > > My personal opinion is that there's a tendency to view all subprojects under the LLVM umbrella as a single, monolithic project. That leads to the desire to make decisions for the whole project, which is often difficult, as opposed to making...

...gt; > SGTM. I don't think we need a -final suffix or anything. A straight > version number seems to convey intent for many other projects. But not > a big deal either way. > > We almost certainly want annotated tags. > > > 2. Tags for commits in the master branch that bump the release version. > > > > Most of the discussion about this so far has been on what to put after > > the version number (e.g. v8.0.0-dev, v8.0.0-base, v8.0.0-branchpoint). > > Other things to consider about this tag is that it might be used in > > a git describe ali...

...e: > In October, there was a discussion about updating CMake to 3.15: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136295.html. No decision was made, but maybe we should revisit that proposal? If we're going to require a newer version of CMake for some subprojects, I'd prefer to bump the minimum CMake version for all of LLVM. > Yes, I agree we should bump the version for all of LLVM, but I don't think we should bump the version without a long-term cmake usage plan. e.g. something like: After every release branch, we bump the cmake version to whatever version of cmake i...

...ttp://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136295.html <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-October/136295.html>. No decision was made, but maybe we should revisit that proposal? If we're going to require a newer version of CMake for some subprojects, I'd prefer to bump the minimum CMake version for all of LLVM. > > > > My personal opinion is that there's a tendency to view all subprojects under the LLVM umbrella as a single, monolithic project. That leads to the desire to make decisions for the whole project, which is often difficult, as opposed...

...s at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Louis Dionne via llvm-dev > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2020 10:14 AM > To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv at gmail.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Libc++ Dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Bumping the CMake requirement for libc++ and libc++abi > > > > > On Mar 25, 2020, at 13:07, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv at gmail.com <mailto:nikita.ppv at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 5:01 PM Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org...

...ntly advertised for libc++ and libc++abi is currently 3.4.3. I think the oldest version of CMake actually being tested on any builder is 3.7.0, so advertising 3.4.3 is somewhat of a lie (I'm pretty sure we're using features that require a more recent version already). However, we do need to bump it to 3.8.0 at least because CMake 3.7 doesn't know about C++17 in its compilation features, and we'll need that to build libc++ properly going forward. This will mean for bot owners: 1. They need to upgrade CMake on the builders to at least 3.8.0 (which is really easy), or 2. they can disa...

...aid out in the bitcode and > anyone compiling a pre-llvm-6.0 bitcode with llvm-6.0 will lose all the > optimizations guarded by isFast and a pre-llvm-6.0 compiler compiling a > llvm-6.0 bitcode will potentially generate incorrect code w.r.t. fast math > expectations. > > Should we bump the bitcode version because of that and have the > autoupgrader properly rewrite the fast-math to preserve that semantic? > (I believe we should!) > > > * Context * > > With https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304 / r317488 we got rid of the umbrella > UnsafeMath flag and introduced...

...etreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2020 at 2:06 PM To: "ldionne at apple.com" <ldionne at apple.com> Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, Libc++ Dev <libcxx-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Bumping the CMake requirement for libc++ and libc++abi Wanting to use new features is a good reason to upgrade. You say you need 3.8 in order to compile C++17 code, which is needed by your subproject. This is a good reason to upgrade the version. The proposed policy of bumping the CMake minimum version...

We do not promise API compatibility for filters between stable releases of nbdkit, however, we should at least ensure that when we do break API, that we refuse to load a filter compiled against one version of nbdkit with another server running a different API. A single bump once per stable release is good enough (rather than once per API change). We did this correctly for commits b0ce4411/cb309687/df0cc21d (bumping to API version 2 for the combined changes between v1.2 and v1.4), but failed to do so for f184fdc3 (affecting v1.10), 4ca66f70 (affecting v1.12), or 5ee7b...

Hi there, I would like to make a 'bumps chart' like the ones described e.g. here: http://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/bumps_chart/ Purpose: I'd like to plot the proportion of people in select countries living for less then one USD pr day in 1994 and 2004 respectively. I have already constructed a barplot - but I think a b...

...the way fast math flags are laid out in the bitcode and anyone compiling a pre-llvm-6.0 bitcode with llvm-6.0 will lose all the optimizations guarded by isFast and a pre-llvm-6.0 compiler compiling a llvm-6.0 bitcode will potentially generate incorrect code w.r.t. fast math expectations. Should we bump the bitcode version because of that and have the autoupgrader properly rewrite the fast-math to preserve that semantic? (I believe we should!) * Context * With https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304> / r317488 we got rid of the umbrella UnsafeMath flag and introdu...

...te: > We do not promise API compatibility for filters between stable > releases of nbdkit, however, we should at least ensure that when we do > break API, that we refuse to load a filter compiled against one > version of nbdkit with another server running a different API. A > single bump once per stable release is good enough (rather than once > per API change). > > We did this correctly for commits b0ce4411/cb309687/df0cc21d (bumping > to API version 2 for the combined changes between v1.2 and v1.4), but > failed to do so for f184fdc3 (affecting v1.10), 4ca66f70 (a...

...st math flags are laid out in the bitcode and anyone compiling a pre-llvm-6.0 bitcode with llvm-6.0 will lose all the optimizations guarded by isFast and a pre-llvm-6.0 compiler compiling a llvm-6.0 bitcode will potentially generate incorrect code w.r.t. fast math expectations. > > Should we bump the bitcode version because of that and have the autoupgrader properly rewrite the fast-math to preserve that semantic? > (I believe we should!) > > > * Context * > > With https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304> / r317488 we got rid of the umbrel...

...rate); the --no-wait option can be used in that case. Joel Bosveld (1): Shaped windows may have only one rectangle which is smaller than window. bcop : ------ Dennis Kasprzyk (1): Don't return Options if Screen/Display has been freed. Guillaume Seguin (2): * Bump version to 0.8.3 * Bump version to 0.8.4 libcompizconfig : ----------------- Erkin Bahceci (9): Update .pb when an older .xml is used, too. Compare string find result with npos. Fix memory leaks. Fix memory leaks. Avoid allocating 0-size memory. Fix memory leak....

...aid out in the bitcode and > anyone compiling a pre-llvm-6.0 bitcode with llvm-6.0 will lose all the > optimizations guarded by isFast and a pre-llvm-6.0 compiler compiling a > llvm-6.0 bitcode will potentially generate incorrect code w.r.t. fast math > expectations. > > Should we bump the bitcode version because of that and have the > autoupgrader properly rewrite the fast-math to preserve that semantic? > (I believe we should!) > > > * Context * > > With https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304 / r317488 we got rid of the umbrella > UnsafeMath flag and introduced...

...st math flags are laid out in the bitcode and anyone compiling a pre-llvm-6.0 bitcode with llvm-6.0 will lose all the optimizations guarded by isFast and a pre-llvm-6.0 compiler compiling a llvm-6.0 bitcode will potentially generate incorrect code w.r.t. fast math expectations. > > Should we bump the bitcode version because of that and have the autoupgrader properly rewrite the fast-math to preserve that semantic? > (I believe we should!) > > > * Context * > > With https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304> / r317488 we got rid of the umbrel...

...x.org/commit/5e59ac11d6d105591d6da742750ea2f804534d43 > Author: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > AuthorDate: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:03:13 +0000 > Committer: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming at intel.com> > CommitDate: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:03:38 +0000 > > version: Bump version > > We've now entered the 6.03 development cycle. > I have done a `git pull`, but can't see the new Lua version. Is Lua 5.2.2 in 6.03? Groeten Geert Stappers -- Leven en laten leven

...flags are laid out in the bitcode and anyone compiling a pre-llvm-6.0 bitcode with llvm-6.0 will lose all the optimizations guarded by isFast and a pre-llvm-6.0 compiler compiling a llvm-6.0 bitcode will potentially generate incorrect code w.r.t. fast math expectations. >> >> Should we bump the bitcode version because of that and have the autoupgrader properly rewrite the fast-math to preserve that semantic? >> (I believe we should!) >> >> >> * Context * >> >> With https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D39304> / r317488...

Hello! I'm using NVIDIA GeForce GT 640M. And beginning with this commit: commit 142c21b8d493318551932eee2e9d98ff14b473da Author: Christoph Bumiller <e0425955 at student.tuwien.ac.at> Date: Wed Mar 27 22:25:52 2013 +0100 drm/nouveau/drm: bump the driver version to 1.1.1 to report new features till the latest kernel 3.15-rc5 OpenArena game looks like this: http://s3.postimg.org/wif3fbcvn/image.jpg http://s27.postimg.org/md9olgr8z/image.jpg Is it a known bug? What can I do to fix it? Using Mesa version 10.0.3.