search for: rebranched

Hi Anton, git-svn got confused at the branch point for the release_31: I see that the current release_31 branch has been created on r155051 as 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

FYI, I have been maintaining my own release_31 manually on github.com/chapuni. 2012/5/1 Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org>: > Hi Anton, > > git-svn got confused at the branch point for the release_31: I see > that the current release_31 branch has been created on r155051 as a > copy of r155050 from trunk, and r155050 is actually removing an older > release_31 branch:

> 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

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:20 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > FYI, I have been maintaining my own release_31 manually on github.com/chapuni. > Thanks for the pointer. I was waiting for Anton to fix the llvm.org git repo for the 3.1 branch. Anton, could you please try to fix the release_31 git branch? Thanks, Sebastian > 2012/5/1 Sebastian Pop <spop at

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

Maurice Gittens wrote: > Hi all, > > I just svn-updated the 2.5 branch on my machine and I noticed this > warning during the build. > > *** Warning: Linking the shared library > /home/maurice/installation/llvm/Debug/lib/libLTO.la against the non-libtool > *** objects /home/maurice/installation/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMCppBackend.o >

...tect that a path is no good. It might even fall back to TCP only or (to be really fancy) use STUN. 4. Better TCP-only security. #1 and possibly #2 would not require protocol changes, so they could happen in 1.0 if it were to live on. So could work like converting to libevent. 2.0 could be rebranched when one of the protocol changes is ready, and not be so different that it'd be impossible to merge between them. Oh by the way - thanks for catching that stupid close() bug in my last patch. Ironically similar to the sort of bug I was trying to fix... Best regards, Scott -- Scott Lam...

Hi all, I just svn-updated the 2.5 branch on my machine and I noticed this warning during the build. *** Warning: Linking the shared library /home/maurice/installation/llvm/Debug/lib/libLTO.la against the non-libtool *** objects /home/maurice/installation/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMCppBackend.o /home/maurice/installation/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMMSIL.o /home/maurice/installation/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMCBackend.o

Thanks for the clarifications, Bob! I’ve spent some time with the head of the llvm.org repo, and I now understand a lot better what Renato and Tim were talking about re. the architecture aliases. The patch to add v6l, therefore, seems simple enough. I haven’t been able to test it in my usual flow, because that involves the whole swift stack. I’m considering creating a program that links to

> You assume triples make sense. That's the first mistake everyone does > when thinking about triples. :) I know they don't make sense in many corner cases, but I think discarding logic where it *does* exist is a mistake. > AFAIK, "ARMv7B" is only used by HighBank, which is no more. But that, > too, was "ARMv7A big endian". I believe it's what any