search for: jlebar

...h multiple > repos are any worse than the problems with a single repo, which makes > this more or less just change for the sake of change, IMO. > It would be useful to know what problems you see with a single repo that are more significant. In particular, either why you think the problems jlebar already mentioned are worse than he sees them, or what other problems are that he hasn't addressed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160721/1f54f3ae/attachment.html>

...interspersed with one another -- something I didn't realize I wanted until I made the switch and noticed I already had branches I could merge (and something we can't do with Bogner's suggested multirepo workflow). [1] https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project [2] https://github.com/jlebar/llvm-repo-tools [3] https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project/commit/38a6db646d8f43cd9d7cec6c0533e40946cd162f (which, embarrassingly, has a typo in the commit message) [4] http://jasonkarns.com/blog/subdirectory-checkouts-with-git-sparse-checkout/ [5] https://github.com/kien/ctrlp.vim [6] https:...

...lear -- it's kind of the key point. As I said, you can accomplish this with submodules, too, but it requires the complex hackery from my original email. To me, this is not at all a minor inconvenience. It's at least an hour of wasted time every week. > I haven't tried the options jlebar has described to deal with these - sparse checkouts and whatnot, but they seem like an equivalent amount of work/learning curve as writing a script that cd's to several directories and runs the same git command in each. I'll send sparse checkout instructions separately. But my example sub...

...ess of the mono-repo proposal. In such a case the mono-repo proposal is essentially just an attempt to make it convenient for a large subset of the community to ease their workflows, rather than truly being an alternative to the submodule proposal. Am I misunderstanding? Just an FYI, I talked with jlebar on IRC and we advanced the conversation, I am going to update the document when I get some time later tonight. Michael > > Michael > >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: >>> By the way, I've been using the ex...

...e the mono-repo proposal is essentially just an attempt to make it convenient for a large subset of the community to ease their workflows, rather than truly being an alternative to the submodule proposal. Am I misunderstanding? Michael > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: >> By the way, I've been using the existing read-only monorepo [1] for a >> few days now. The intent is to commit via the script I put together >> [2], although I haven't committed anything other than a testing commit >> [3]. >> >&...

...epo workflow, your checkouts are always correct with respect to atomic commits. Under the basic multirepo workflow, this is not true -- you have to engage with git submodules to get this property, and that is a giant pain. Sorry for the wall of text, but this is important. [1] https://github.com/jlebar/llvm-repo-tools. Be careful, I've only made one commit with it so far. :) On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: >> The only thing a monorepo gets you that strictly isn’t possible without >> it is the ability to commit to multipl...

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Justin Bogner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> writes: > >> Running the same 'git checkout' commands on multiple repos has > >> always been sufficient to manage the multiple repos so far > > > > Huh. It definitely hasn't worked well for me. > > > > Here's the issue I f...

Justins: I noticed that the intrinsics in IntrinsicsNVVM don't specify a TargetPrefix. This seems like a simple omission, so I was going to simply throw a `let TargetPrefix = "nvvm" ` block around them, but this doesn't quite work. There seem to be three prefixes that are used in this file. About 900 are int_nvvm_*, 30 are int_ptx_*, and 1 is int_cuda. It isn't clear to me

Dear all, In the official document <https://llvm.org/docs/CompileCudaWithLLVM.html>, it is mentioned that CUDA compilation is supported on Windows as of 2017-01-05. I used msys2 to install clang 5.0.1. Then I installed cuda 8.0. However, I basically could not compile any code of cuda by the prescribed setting. I wounder if anyone can successfully compile cuda code by the clang on Windows.

> On 21 July 2016 at 18:12, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > > llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra, lld, polly, lldb, llgo, compiler-rt, > > openmp, and parallel-libs. > > I really, *really* would like to see libc++ / abi / unwind. :) > > My reason is that, when building toolchains, the C++ ABI and unwinding...

> Which projects do we put under this monolithic repository? The proposal at the moment is to include llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra, lld, polly, lldb, llgo, compiler-rt, openmp, and parallel-libs. This is the set {llvm} plus the transitive closure of "projects that are version-locked to a project in the set", where the closure is taken over the set of all active LLVM

> The only thing a monorepo gets you that strictly isn’t possible without > it is the ability to commit to multiple projects in a single commit. > Personally I don’t think that is a big enough justification, but that is > my opinion, not a fact. Okay, I just bumped into r277008, in which commits to llvm, clang, and clang-tools-extra all have the same SVN revision number. I don't

> Today I *can* checkout only LLVM and Clang. On a single Git repo I can't. This is true if you s/checkout/clone/. With a single repo, you must clone (download) everything (*), but after you've done so you can use sparse checkouts to check out (create a working copy of) only llvm and clang. So you should only notice the fact that there exist things other than llvm and clang when you

> NVidia TX1 is the AArch64 Jetson board with proper GPU (we use those). Sure, I believe that others use this configuration. I was saying, "we", being, myself and those whom I work closely with, do not. Sorry if that wasn't precise. It is still not clear to me if the original poster is compiling for ARM or not. But it sounds like you're going to help them get this

...ists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories? On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm- dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: On 21 July 2016 at 18:12, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com<mailto:jlebar at google.com>> wrote: llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra, lld, polly, lldb, llgo, compiler-rt, openmp, and parallel-libs. I really, *really* would like to see libc++ / abi / unwind. :) My reason is that, when building toolchains, the C++ ABI and unwinding are fu...

David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> writes: > Why would enums be less elegant than named boolean constants as you've shown here? Casting, mainly. If the parameters were also changed to an enum type that would be fine too, probably better than inline variables even. > http://jlebar.com/2011/12/16/Boolean_parameters_to_API_functions_considered_harmful..html > (at a random googling for "bool parameters considered harmful") > reasonably suggests splitting functions, but that's not always > practical - often lots of common code, etc (but writing wrappers is...

Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > - LLVM's `/*foo=*/`-style comment to annotate function arguments need > to be handled automatically to make the tool scalable. So is the > doxygen @parameter. This is a bit of a side note, but in my own work I've more recently tried to move from this style: foo.h int foo(int a, bool doSomething); foo.cpp

...Justin Lebar; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories? > > > > On Jul 21, 2016, at 2:33 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev <llvm- > dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On 21 July 2016 at 18:12, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: > >>> llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra, lld, polly, lldb, llgo, compiler-rt, > >>> openmp, and parallel-libs. > >> > >> I really, *really* would like to see libc++ / abi / unwind. :) > >> > >> My reason is that, whe...

On 27 October 2016 at 19:02, Justin Lebar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, it looks like you're compiling CUDA for an ARM host? This is not > a configuration we have tested, nor is it something we have the > capability of testing at the moment. Hi Justin, NVidia TX1 is the AArch64 Jetson board with proper GPU (we use those). > You may be able to

> On Jul 20, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 21 July 2016 at 01:39, Justin Lebar <jlebar at google.com> wrote: >> This is true if you s/checkout/clone/. With a single repo, you must >> clone (download) everything (*), but after you've done so you can use >> sparse checkouts to check out (create a working copy of) only llvm and >> clang. So you should on...