search for: hahnjo

...missing and what is there is partially outdated. I'd add all features and if they are worked on, description of support, as well as the version they are landed in. What do you think? Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de<mailto:hahnjo at hahnjo.de>> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:20:21 AM To: Doerfert, Johannes Cc: llvm-dev; kli at ca.ibm.com<mailto:kli at ca.ibm.com>; Narayanaswamy, Ravi Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Webpage to track implementation status of OpenMP features Hi Johannnes, th...

On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: > On 2018-08-27 09:44, Sedat Dilek wrote: >> >> Yeah, I see. >> You have an unusual development process seen from my POV. > > > GNOME does the same, to pick one example: > https://wiki.gnome.org/ThreePointTwentynine > Tarballs are due on M...

...ed. I'd add all features and if they are worked on, description of support, as well as the version they are landed in. What do you think? >> >> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de<mailto:hahnjo at hahnjo.de>> >> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:20:21 AM >> To: Doerfert, Johannes >> Cc: llvm-dev; kli at ca.ibm.com<mailto:kli at ca.ibm.com>; Narayanaswamy, Ravi >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Webpage to track implementation status o...

...* macOS * FreeBSD10 AMD64 * Windows (32-bit) * Windows (64-bit) So giving an OK on different platforms than above listen ones is done via email? I mean without providing prebuilt binaries? - Sedat - [1] http://prereleases.llvm.org/7.0.0/#rc1 On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: > The answer is the same as two years ago: The tarballs are made available > once ready. The release manager will usually send another email saying so, > the last one said "[7.0.0 Release] rc1 has been tagged" (not "available"). > > For ref...

...features and if they are worked on, description of support, as well as the version they are landed in. What do you think? >>> >>> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de<mailto:hahnjo at hahnjo.de>> >>> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 2:20:21 AM >>> To: Doerfert, Johannes >>> Cc: llvm-dev; kli at ca.ibm.com<mailto:kli at ca.ibm.com>; Narayanaswamy, >>> Ravi >>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Webpage to...

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:03, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: >> >> Am 2018-01-18 14:55, schrieb Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev: >>> On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers >>> <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> Start your engines; 6.0.0-rc1 was just tagged....

On 19 Jan 2018, at 17:11, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: >> On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:03, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: >>> >>> Am 2018-01-18 14:55, schrieb Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev: >>>> On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers >>>> <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> Start your engines; 6.0.0-...

On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:03, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: > > Am 2018-01-18 14:55, schrieb Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev: >> On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers >> <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Start your engines; 6.0.0-rc1 was just tagged. >>> I know...

Am 2018-01-18 14:55, schrieb Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev: > On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers > <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Start your engines; 6.0.0-rc1 was just tagged. >> >> I know there are still open blockers and it's early in the process in >> a way, but I'd like to find out where we are. Please run the

Isn't libc++.so dependent on libc++abi.so? On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: > From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime > libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think they don't > have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, so what would be > the advantage of having RPATH set...

...ader" in your output). And IIRC libc++abi is only one possible implementation that may be used by libc++, but I'm no expert here... Am 2018-03-05 17:33, schrieb Brian Cain: > Isn't libc++.so dependent on libc++abi.so? > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> > wrote: > >> From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime >> libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think >> they don't have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, >> so what would be the adva...

Curious. I removed -fno-experimental-isel and all of the tests *except* control_tool.c passed. I would have expected all of them to pass if blockaddress works. I'll try to look at some asm and see what's going on. -David Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> writes: > Hi David, > > I was the one who originally added the flag to fix failures related to > GlobalISel. This was because first versions of GlobalISel didn't know > how to select 'blockaddress', but this should have been fixed (see > https://bugs....

Am 2018-02-07 21:51, schrieb Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev: > Dear testers, > > There's been a lot of merges since rc1, and hopefully the tests are in > a better state now. > > 6.0.0-rc2 was just tagged, after r324506. > > Please test, let me know how it goes, and upload binaries. Hi Hans, I can't build the documentation:

Hi, I have seen you tagged 7.0.0rc2 in SVN, but [1] has no tarballs for downloading? Can you please provide them? Thanks in advance. Regards, - Sedat - [1] http://prereleases.llvm.org/7.0.0/#rc2 [2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2018-August/date.html

Long story short: We want to create a webpage under llvm.org that shows the implementation status of OpenMP features, similar to https://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html . Please let me know if you have wishes, questions, or concerns. Cheers, Johannes

We're seeing OMPT tests fail on AArch64: libomp :: ompt/misc/control_tool.c libomp :: ompt/synchronization/master.c libomp :: ompt/synchronization/taskwait.c The failure mode is similar for all of them: openmp/runtime/test/ompt/misc/control_tool.c:26:17: error: CHECK-NEXT: expected string not found in input // CHECK-NEXT: {{^}}[[MASTER_ID]]:

From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think they don't have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, so what would be the advantage of having RPATH set on them? Regards, Jonas Am 2018-03-05 17:23, schrieb Brian Cain via llvm-dev: > It was just brought to my attention that the RPATH

Dear testers, There's been a lot of merges since rc1, and hopefully the tests are in a better state now. 6.0.0-rc2 was just tagged, after r324506. Please test, let me know how it goes, and upload binaries. Thanks, Hans

It was just brought to my attention that the RPATH configuration isn't uniform among the libraries produced by the release. Some use $ORIGIN../lib/ and others have none. Is this by design? It seems like it might be ideal for all of them to be configured the same way. If that makes sense I'll create a corresponding feature request. $ for f in