search for: keane

...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 gm...

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 > a...

...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 doin...

...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 way...

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, Nov...

...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 t...

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. Ch...

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.k...

...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 m...

> 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 tr...

...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.ll...

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 tig...

Hi Folks, Bear with me, I'm a newbie to LLVM. I've read the language reference and the mailing list archive. One area of the semantics of the Structure type that hasn't been discussed is whether fields in the structure get re-arranged to better suit the target machine's natural alignment, ala what happens in C. For example would this structure on a 32-bit machine: { i16, i32,

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 this...

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