search for: developerpolici

Recently there's been some friction over reversions (I can remember two cases in recent memory). In both issues the general feel I got is that as a community we should honor "revert for more design review" requests unconditionally. What do you guys think of adding something like this to DeveloperPolicy.rst as an item at the end of the numbered list in

Hi all, We branched for the 3.1 release! (Yay!) If there are any fixes which you think should go into the release, please contact the code owners (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners) so that they can approve the patches. No patches will be accepted into the 3.1 release without prior approval! This should be a great release! :-) -bw

On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: >> >> lib/Bitcode/*

> On Nov 7, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > -1 to "squash and merge" being the only option if rebase+push (--ff-only) is possible. I'd rather we use our judgement to decide what's appropriate for the pull request at hand rather than have a blanket rule. > > Personally, if I have multiple commits

Hi! Some time ago my email address, that I use for committing to LLVM SVN repo has changed (nasty corporate mail changing) and now it's not aligned with email I sent to Chris according to http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access page . Unfortunately it's not possible to forward all messages from LLVM mailing lists from my old address to new one, so I wonder

Hi All, While committing a patch today for someone who currently lacks commit access, I realized I had forgotten the 'Patch by' line and reverted & re-committed to add it. However, while doing so I wondered if our current policy on this still makes sense. Our policy at http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#commit-messages

Hi Nick, Thanks for looking over my patch. I'd be happy to add the compare against cur_buffer_size. I'll try to write up such a change today and then send a new patch to the list. Joseph Kain On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Bill, could you take a look at this? I don't have a checkout of > compiler-rt that builds. > >

> On Jul 26, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26 July 2016 at 20:07, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> I think there are different kinds of inflexibility. We will use our collective professional judgment. There are some large-scale design changes that we might decide can happen over time. Whatever we decide to accept,

Hi, I've recently submitted a patch to llvm-commits (as requested by https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch) and the mailing list answered with a notice that my message is held for moderator approval (with the reason: "Post by non-member to a members-only list"). I'm therefore wondering if I should've submitted my patch via Phabricator

Hi, I've been seeing a crash in llvm_gcda_emit_arcs() on x86_64. The crash occurs executing a movdqa instruction with an unaligned src address. The attached patch to the compiler-rt project fixes the problem by using memcpy() to read data from the write_buffer[] in GCDAProfiling.c. This is my first patch submission to llvm so please let me know if I've missed any steps. I'm not on

>From the DeveloperPolicy.html document I gathered I need to send a patch to this list (which I did); could you clarify if I misunderstood it? The second patch is really trivial and I think it's worth applying - it seems like a typo by someone who tested on MSVC 11 but not 10; or maybe my local instance of MSVC10 is somehow deficient, of course. The first patch is adding MSVC-specific

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Cc: "Chris Lattner" <clattner at apple.com>, "Rafael Ávila de Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>, "Michael Spencer" > <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>, "Chandler Carruth"

Hi all, As per the instructions here <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access>, I contacted Chris Lattner to obtain commit access but haven't received a response (either positive or negative). What's the expected turnaround time for this (I contacted him five days ago)? In case he's currently unavailable, is there someone else I could contact? Thanks,

The original thread on this ICE, including a link to the bug submitted to MS is here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-December/056683.html Michael From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Sergiy Migdalskiy Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:28 To: David Blaikie Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Patch to compile LLVM

On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> >> On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code

> I don't know that the actual policy has ever been formally documented, > although it has been discussed from time to time, so it's not too > surprising that people have different ideas of what the policy is. > > Maybe documenting the release-numbering-semantics policy alongside > the release-timing policy would be a good idea? It is documented at

Hi, https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access still describes the SVN process. How do things work now that we're on github? Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191101/7bc2d459/attachment.html>

On Jul 23, 2011, at 5:37 AM, FlyLanguage wrote: >>>> After git, mainline will still be the most important branch for >>>> the *project*, >>>> but you will work with quite a few branches on parallel. >>>> >>>> >>>> Who's mainline? :) Be prepared to assign a super-merger, like Linus, >>>> to maintain

Bill, could you take a look at this? I don't have a checkout of compiler-rt that builds. It seems obviously-correct to me, but I wish it did a compare against cur_buffer_size to make sure it's in range. Nick Joseph Kain wrote: > Hi, > > I've been seeing a crash in llvm_gcda_emit_arcs() on x86_64. The crash > occurs executing a movdqa instruction with an unaligned src

Hello, I was curious if there was any advice on how to get a code-review restarted/completed. The two I've submitted recently (D30107<https://reviews.llvm.org/D30107> D29923<https://reviews.llvm.org/D29923>) have gotten a bit of review but both then seem to stall. Any hints? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: