search for: cqueri

I'd be opposed to 6/5, given where it would leave us. It's simply hard to see a compelling reason to leave things that long. In particular, given this is about what it takes to produce a binary release of clang/llvm from trunk (and not what it takes to use one), i'd like to see some evidence/argument that using 3/1.5 would actually have a material affect on the number of

Dear List, Would anyone know how to perform prepared queries with ROBC ? I had a shot with some of the internal (non-exported) functions of the package but ended up with a segfault, so I prefer asking around before experimenting further... Thanks, Laurent

Hi, @Erich, thanks for putting this together :). > On May 11, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'd be opposed to 6/5, given where it would leave us. > It's simply hard to see a compelling reason to leave things that long. > > In particular, given this is about what it takes to produce a binary release of

LLVM Weekly - #218, Mar 5th 2018 ================================ If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/218>. Welcome to the two hundred and eighteenth issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex

On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 5:10 AM Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > @Erich, thanks for putting this together :). > On May 11, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'd be opposed to 6/5, given where it would leave us. > It's simply hard to see a compelling reason to leave things

I second this proposal, and I make a motion to lengthen 3/1.5 to 6/5. On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 9:37 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi All- > As we all know, the C++14 discussion is flaring up again. Chandler > brought up that he would like a concrete plan to switch. In my opinion, > this is insufficient, as it will result in us simply

Hi All- As we all know, the C++14 discussion is flaring up again. Chandler brought up that he would like a concrete plan to switch. In my opinion, this is insufficient, as it will result in us simply having this discussion AGAIN next release. Instead, I would prefer us to have a concrete Policy on our host compilers. That way, changes like this are unsurprising to our users, and advance our