search for: kean

...ght into it. If ‘we’ as a community (and I think we do?) have a contact at github could ping someone and get a reasonably quick confirmation that they are switching to ‘main’, it would be appreciated/should guide our decision. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Keane, Erich via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 11:48 AM To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename `master` branch? My understanding is the biggest concern about the name change is the ‘cost’ associated with needing to update...

I mean, we could change it twice? There are about a hundred scripts out there for doing it. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:40 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > Do we have any ability to reach out to github (at least?) to see what they > are going to do? I’d very much like to avoid being the odd-project-out > here. > > > > > > > > *From:* Eric Christopher <echristo at g...

That's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the build bot owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes the time rather than the change :) On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Keane, Erich via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My understanding is the biggest concern about the name change is the > ‘cost’ associated with needing to update each of the individual buildbots > (and my understanding is that this would be a somewhat non-centralized >...

...orry for the inline-comment format being weird, I haven't figured out yet how to do '>' stuff in outlook yet :/ Hopefully this is clear enough. -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:55 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Pointer to temporary issue in ArrayRefTest.InitializerList > On Aug 24, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all- > I am mostly doi...

...make any change. If this deadline passes, > then we can decide on a new name for the default branch and stick with it > moving forward. > > > > Thanks, > > Christopher Tetreault > > > > *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Keane, > Erich via llvm-dev > *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:56 AM > *To:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>; llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename > `master` branch? > > > >...

...make any change. If this deadline passes, > then we can decide on a new name for the default branch and stick with it > moving forward. > > > > Thanks, > > Christopher Tetreault > > > > *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> *On Behalf Of *Keane, > Erich via llvm-dev > *Sent:* Friday, June 19, 2020 11:56 AM > *To:* Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>; llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject:* [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] Inclusive language in LLVM: can we rename > `master` branch? > > > >...

There's really no guarantee that things will shake out the same in near term between the projects. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:31 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > I’m a bit mixed on this. While yes, we should change this as soon as is > practical, it would be a shame to pick something sufficiently different > from the rest of the world, as that would be anti-inclusive (though in a > technical wa...

Stephen, does that help you out? From: Mike Edwards <mike at sqlby.me> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:55 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: Stephen Hines <srhines at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang developer list <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Renaming The Default Branch On Mon, No...

...s it isn’t just my pain then, it makes it feel better ☺ I think that proposed feature would be really nice, since it would encourage people to write tests that have a //CHECK: some-thing-after-header first! From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:15 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] FileCheck feature request- by default ignore IR-"headers" Yeah, this is a documented shortcoming of FileCheck: http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#fragile-tests I think the most practical...

I’d like us to move forward with something along the lines Erich proposed back in May, ideally early enough in the LLVM 8 release process that people testing the release will be able to provide feedback. Are there any remaining concerns? > On May 23, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all- > I just wanted to bump this again, I know I sent it out on a Friday :) I realize this is a minor code change with significant implications, so it seems to me that I should ensure it gets extensive exposure. >...

...ode review together here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073 With the intent of either implementing this policy change, or encouraging further discussion/bikeshed. Thanks all! -Erich -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Davis [mailto:brooks at freebsd.org] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:34 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] A Short Policy Proposal Regarding Host Compilers On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 01:37:22PM +0000, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi All- > As we all know, the C++14 discussion is flaring up again. C...

Ah, I see what you mean. I would have no problem with January 7th being pushed back a while if that helps out your transition. Would that be possible Mike? From: Stephen Hines <srhines at google.com> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 6:03 PM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang developer list <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Renaming The Default Branch On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:00 PM Keane, Erich <erich....

...I’d like us to move forward with something along the lines Erich proposed back in May, ideally early enough in the LLVM 8 release process that people testing the release will be able to provide feedback. > > Are there any remaining concerns? > > > > On May 23, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > Hi all- > > I just wanted to bump this again, I know I sent it out on a Friday :) I realize this is a minor code change with significant implications, so it seems to...

> On Dec 14, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > One of my coworkers noticed that we(Clang/LLVM) have quite a few places where we need to iterate through 2 equally sized ranges at the same time, often related to parm/arg relationships. In a few cases we(Clang/LLVM) use a t...

...that would need to be fixed as well. 2- Implement the r-value ctors to allocate. This is likely going to require an additional member to capture the fact that this was allocated and thus needs to be free'd. I suspect that this violates the purpose of the ArrayRef. 3- Others? Thanks, Erich Keane

...d GCC 4.8 and Clang 3.3 the first to not warn. 6/5 is surprisingly close to making the policy conform to exactly our current time-lag, where we are GCC4.8 (instead of 4.7) and Clang 3.1 (also 3.1). -Erich From: Andrew Kelley [mailto:superjoe30 at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 8:58 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] A Short Policy Proposal Regarding Host Compilers 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.l...

On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 10:55, Mike Edwards via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> > wrote: > >> Ah, I see what you mean. I would have no problem with January 7th being >> pushed back a while if that helps out your transition. Would that be >> possible Mike? >> > > The main reason for holding such a ti...

...type { i16, i32, i16 } ... %firstField = getelementptr %BLAH* %instance, i32 1, i32 0 In this example I want to access the first 16-bit integer field of Structure BLAH, so the last argument to GetElementPtr is index 0, but if the fields gets re-arranged, how do I know which index to use? Thanks, Kean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070716/d88e2cb1/attachment.html>

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 6:05 PM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > Ah, I see what you mean. I would have no problem with January 7th being > pushed back a while if that helps out your transition. Would that be > possible Mike? > The main reason for holding such a tight schedule is we do not want thi...

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