search for: mkpatch

The document: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html refers to using utils/mkpatch. However when using mkpatch it complains about directories no longer under version control. Specifically directories lib/Debugger and win32 in mkpatch's source line: svn diff -x -u >> "$NAME".patch.raw 2>&1 \ autoconf docs utils include lib/System lib/Support lib/VMCo...

I've included a patch which does not remove mkpatch but does remove diff search directories which caused a failure because those directories were no longer in svn. I was uncomfortable removing mkpatch since I believe it helps document creating patches for beginners who do not use separate source and build (object) root directories. Its existence is...

Hello, I hope that this is an appropriate for this list - please educate me if not. Having cloned the unstable repository and attempted to run "make mkpatches" I found that it failed because it couldn''t download linux.2.6.16-rc4.tar.bz2 from kernel.org. This is because it''s looking for it in /pub/linux/kernel/v2.6 when in fact it is to be found in /pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/testing/. I resolved this by editing [my hg repo]/buildco...

...s are using ext3 and have to patch every time a new kernel comes out. I really think we need to strong arm Linus or something and get ext3 into 2.4.11 at least as expermintal. If that is near impossible then we should really look into a autopatch generator like i2c has you just do something like mkpatch /usr/src/linux | patch -p1 and it auto generates a valid patch file for that version for you. Which makes it as simple as running the command and making a new patch instead of waiting for the developers to come out with a new one because of small changes in most cases.

...which sets TESTNAME=<name> and then includes the common Makefile.unittest. Each subdir under unittests creates a separate executable. (I didn't use the default googletest main because I figured at some point we might want to customize main().) - I updated the LICENSE.txt and mkpatch, but I haven't done the HTML docs yet because I am still thinking about what to write. - I probably made some mistakes in setting up the makefile rules - that is what took the most time - so it will merit heightened scrutiny. -- -- Talin -------------- next part -------------- An HTM...

...E=<name> and then includes the common > Makefile.unittest. Each subdir under unittests creates a separate > executable. (I didn't use the default googletest main because I figured at > some point we might want to customize main().) > - I updated the LICENSE.txt and mkpatch, but I haven't done the HTML > docs yet because I am still thinking about what to write. > - I probably made some mistakes in setting up the makefile rules - that > is what took the most time - so it will merit heightened scrutiny. > > +++ unittests/Makefile.unittest...

...odule named /utils/. Initially > > this could be a merge of the hlvm and llvm module /utils/ directory > > (excluding things like tblgen which is llvm specific). > > What tools are common? Things like, especially, the makefile system and common configure stuff. Other tools like mkpatch and a few others would also find some common utility. > This is another thing someone has to check out. I don't see this as being particularly troublesome, especially if we rearrange the top level as I suggested in my prior email. > > > 4. "projects" > > I don...

Hi all, A few things. Firstly, I've got a working implementation of the X86ThisCall calling convention, but I'm unsure how to go about submitting it. (I'm not really sure how to go about creating patch files etc, but would like to contribute to the project). Also, I'm using MS Visual C++ Express, and there are a few things that stop llvm1.9 (and the current CVS release) from

...nd then includes the common >> Makefile.unittest. Each subdir under unittests creates a separate >> executable. (I didn't use the default googletest main because I figured at >> some point we might want to customize main().) >> - I updated the LICENSE.txt and mkpatch, but I haven't done the HTML >> docs yet because I am still thinking about what to write. >> - I probably made some mistakes in setting up the makefile rules - >> that is what took the most time - so it will merit heightened scrutiny. >> >> > +++ unitte...

Directly including ../tools breaks building in separate object tree, as well as building from mkpatch patch (I believe Rik hit that one). This puts xenstore headers in linux-public. Signed-off-by: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org> --- a/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/drivers/xen/xenbus/Makefile Mon Aug 8 18:43:57 2005 +++ b/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/drivers/xen/xenbus/Makefile Mon Aug 8 15:15:06 2005 @@ -4...

Hi All; I can''t find any related discussion on list archives so i just want to learn could anybody tell me is there any specific reason not to upgrade xen-3.0.4-testing tree to for example 2.6.16.38 which fixes dozens of security related problems after .33, i know as a distro packager its my responsibility to sync/modify whatever is needed but as an end-user perspective i just want

Not sure if this is a pkg-xen issue or for the debian kernel people, trying here first since the patch I applied is created from the pkg-xen project % apt-get source xen-3.0 % cd xen-3.0-3.0.2+hg9646/ % make mkpatches % cd /usr/src/linux-source-2.6.16 % patch -p1 < ../linux-2.6-xen.patch % cp ../config-2.6.16-1-amd64-k8 .config % make-kpkg --append-to-version -1-xen-3.2.0-d0 binary /usr/bin/make EXTRAVERSION=-1-xen-3.2.0-d0 ARCH=x86_64 \ bzImage <snip> CC [M] net/ipv4/netfilt...

...the common >>> Makefile.unittest. Each subdir under unittests creates a separate >>> executable. (I didn't use the default googletest main because I figured at >>> some point we might want to customize main().) >>> - I updated the LICENSE.txt and mkpatch, but I haven't done the HTML >>> docs yet because I am still thinking about what to write. >>> - I probably made some mistakes in setting up the makefile rules - >>> that is what took the most time - so it will merit heightened scrutiny. >>> >>...

...planning to break the "llvm" module up into three modules: > > > > * support - lib/Support, lib/System, autoconf, make support, > > utilities > > which utilities? The C++ programs in llvm/utils should not be moved. No, I was thinking more like "mkpatch" and "llvmgrep". > > > * core - VMCore, Asm, Bitcode and the essential IR tools (llvm-as, > > etc.) > > I'm still not convinced that this is useful to split out from the rest of > the LLVM tree, we should discuss this again after support i...

Hi All, I have created a minimally functional Win32 COFF Exporter using the new MC framework. I made some minor changes to other libraries to allow me to plug it in without building it as part of the LLVM project. I wanted to share it but wasn't sure how to go about doing so, so I have attached the code to this message. Any feedback on would be appreciated. -------------- next part

...with the current edge profiling) Please tell me what you do not like and if this is interesting enough to be added to the trunk, if so, I will also devise test cases for "make check". If you do not like the size of this patch it is possible to break it up a little. I did not use the mkpatch utility since it does not include added files, I hope the format is readable enough (it should be...) I ran "make check" and there are not additional errors introduced by the patch. Grettings, Andreas Neustifter [Ball94] Thomas Ball, James R. Larus: "Optimally profiling and traci...

I've just been trying to catch up with the posts already so figured I'd just start another thread as it seemed I would address things from multiple emails. I really need to get my sieve filter script updated to move the list emails into the proper folder now I guess :) We can play with the revision of the packaging during testing. One idea would be to use 3.0.1-0.YYYYMMDD for

> The current SVN repository has several modules at the top level (llvm, > test-suite, java, stacker, etc.). The modules contain the software that > makes up the LLVM Project. However, there is nothing at the top level > that explains any of this. So, I am considering doing the following at > the top level of the repository (i.e. in > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project): > >

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Reid Spencer wrote: > With the pending reorganization of the software, I have some questions > about how developers set their PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH variables when > working with LLVM. This is a bit long winded, but bear with me. ok :) > We're planning to break the "llvm" module up into three modules: > > * support - lib/Support,

All, The current SVN repository has several modules at the top level (llvm, test-suite, java, stacker, etc.). The modules contain the software that makes up the LLVM Project. However, there is nothing at the top level that explains any of this. So, I am considering doing the following at the top level of the repository (i.e. in http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project): 1. /README.html Just a short