search for: crazily

Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around linear history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. 3) We don't ever plan to have LLVM code move into or out from the test-suite 4) Its already big, and really should be much bigger. We shouldn't ha...

...e directions: > On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. That's indeed a good reason to move the repository away. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around linear history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. We do care about the history. Sometimes benchmarks get fixed or tweaked which may chang...

...llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: >> >> The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: >> 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > That's indeed a good reason to move the repository away. I don't see that as a reason to move the repository. Where a repository lives and what format it uses is an orthogonal issue to what license the software within the repository is allowed to use. There are polic...

On 24 February 2016 at 20:57, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around linear > history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. > 3) We don't ever plan to have LLVM code move into or out from the test-suite > 4) Its already big, and really should be much bigger....

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around linear > history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. > 3) We don't ever plan to have LLVM code move into or out from the test-suite > 4) Its already big, and really should be much bigger....

...llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: >> >> The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: >> 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > That's indeed a good reason to move the repository away. > >> 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around >> linear history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. > We do care about the history. Sometimes benchmarks get fixe...

...ions: > > On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > > That's indeed a good reason to move the repository away. > > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around > linear history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. > > We do care about the history. Sometimes benchmarks get fix...

On 2/24/16 1:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around > linear history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. > 3) We don't ever plan to have LLVM code move into or out from the test-suite > 4) Its already big, and really should be much bigger....

..., I don't see a problem with the change. Regards, John Criswell On 2/24/16 3:57 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: > > The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM project: > 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. > 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns around > linear history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. > 3) We don't ever plan to have LLVM code move into or out from the > test-suite > 4) Its already big, and really should be much...

...g <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Subject kinda says it all. Here is my rationale: >>> >>> The test-suite is really weird relative to the rest of the LLVM >>> project: >>> 1) It contains all manner of crazily licensed code. >> That's indeed a good reason to move the repository away. >> >>> 2) We don't really care about the history at all. Any concerns >>> around linear history or bisection are pretty much irrelevant. >> We do care about the his...

(As per IRC discussion) I understand that the carry-less multiplication algorithm has it's uses since/and it is implemented as an instruction in many architectures and that adding it as a general-purpose intrinsic will allow us to drop target-specific intrinsics as by-product. What i do *NOT* understand is: what is the actual/main goal/driving factor of adding an LLVM intrinsic for it? The

I''m using puppet 0.25.1. I''ve got a simple resource: exec { "/bin/ls $oracle_base/dba/bin/database_backup.ksh": logoutput => on_failure, } and I don''t want it to log every time it''s successfully run: $ sudo tail -F /var/log/messages | grep puppetd Feb 17 16:36:11 test puppetd[26614]: (//my_module/Exec[/bin/ls /u01/

Hello, Specifications of the environment: Samba 3.0.13 running on Solaris 8. This is configured as a domain member of a NT4 style PDC. The smb.conf file is provided for details. Problem definition: When trying to access the Samba server from a windows machine through network neighborhood, the system challenges the user for their credentials. On providing the username/password the system rejects