search for: r154899

...2012 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi Wei-Ren Chen, > > Thanks for the reports. Could you ask on the cfe-dev list if adding these flags to the tests are appropriate to fix the issues? > > -bw If I send patch for LLVM 3.1 rc1, what revision I should againt? The one (r154899) which rc1 branch from, or the current svn head? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667 Homepage: http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj

...a copy of r155050 from trunk, and r155050 is actually removing an older release_31 branch: Revision 155050 Author: void Date: Wed Apr 18 16:38:33 2012 CDT (11 days, 20 hours ago) Log Message: Removing old release_31 branch for rebranching. This "old release_31 branch" was created on r154899: Revision 154899 Author: void Date: Mon Apr 16 21:00:08 2012 CDT (13 days, 16 hours ago) Log Message: Creating release_31 branch Here is how I fixed this in my local git repo: looking at the last commit to trunk r155049, before the "new release_31" has been created: commit bdcfb766...

...tually removing an older > release_31 branch: > > Revision 155050 > Author:         void > Date:   Wed Apr 18 16:38:33 2012 CDT (11 days, 20 hours ago) > Log Message:    Removing old release_31 branch for rebranching. > > This "old release_31 branch" was created on r154899: > > Revision 154899 > Author:         void > Date:   Mon Apr 16 21:00:08 2012 CDT (13 days, 16 hours ago) > Log Message:    Creating release_31 branch > > > Here is how I fixed this in my local git repo: looking at the last > commit to trunk r155049, before the "new...

What was the revision the branch was made from? On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > We branched for the 3.1 release! (Yay!) > > If there are any fixes which you think should go into the release, please contact the code owners (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners) so that they can approve the patches. No

Update: > Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-initializer-stdinitializerlist.cpp > > Seems to be difference between ARM and Intel C++ ABI, but I leave it to > James to comment. Use "-triple x86_64-none-linux-gnu" makes this test pass. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Hi Wei-Ren Chen, Thanks for the reports. Could you ask on the cfe-dev list if adding these flags to the tests are appropriate to fix the issues? -bw On Apr 26, 2012, at 5:35 AM, 陳韋任 <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > Update: > >> Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-initializer-stdinitializerlist.cpp >> >> Seems to be difference between ARM and Intel C++

> In your svn section of llvm/.git/config, you can specify how to map > the svn branches to different name spaces, something like this: > > [svn-remote "svn"] >        [...] >        branches = branches/*:refs/remotes/origin/* >        fetch = branches:refs/remotes/origin > > I would also change "branches = branches/*:refs/remotes/origin/*" > into

...; release_31 branch: >> >> Revision 155050 >> Author:         void >> Date:   Wed Apr 18 16:38:33 2012 CDT (11 days, 20 hours ago) >> Log Message:    Removing old release_31 branch for rebranching. >> >> This "old release_31 branch" was created on r154899: >> >> Revision 154899 >> Author:         void >> Date:   Mon Apr 16 21:00:08 2012 CDT (13 days, 16 hours ago) >> Log Message:    Creating release_31 branch >> >> >> Here is how I fixed this in my local git repo: looking at the last >> commit to...

Hi Anton, On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > Sebastian, > >> I just saw that the git branch remotes/origin/release_31 has been created >> for llvm.  Unfortunately it is missing the right context: right now I can only >> see 11 patches in that branch with the last patch having no parent. >> >> Could

Hi all, We branched for the 3.1 release! (Yay!) If there are any fixes which you think should go into the release, please contact the code owners (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners) so that they can approve the patches. No patches will be accepted into the 3.1 release without prior approval! This should be a great release! :-) -bw