search for: trubi

Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "trubi".

Did you mean: truby
2020 Apr 07
3
F18 ready to be merged + preview of merge
Attached is the log. I'm building with: clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ 3a6da1122b990386edeba0987d0d1fdc9c8dc53d) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix On some Ubuntu-like distribution. I also ran with ASAN once and it found a bunch of leaks in bin/tco. Best, -- Mehdi On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at
2020 Apr 09
2
[RFC] Usage of NDEBUG as a guard for non-assert debug code
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:59 AM Chris Tetreault via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > David, > > > > In my opinion, NDEBUG is one of those gross old C things that everybody > complains about. It’s called “Not Debug”, but really it means “Assert > Disabled”. I think one could be forgiven for actually using it as a > heuristic of whether or not a build
2020 Apr 07
3
F18 ready to be merged + preview of merge
Hi Mehdi, I can't replicate those failures at my end, could you let me know what OS, compiler and CMake flags you're using so I can try and reproduce? Thanks! David Truby ________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: 07 April 2020 06:44 To: Richard Barton
2020 Apr 09
7
[RFC] Usage of NDEBUG as a guard for non-assert debug code
Hi all, During discussions about assertions in the Flang project, we noticed that there are a lot of cases in LLVM that #ifndef NDEBUG is used as a guard for non-assert code that we want enabled in debug builds. This works fine on its own, however it affects the behaviour of LLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS; since NDEBUG controls whether assertions are enabled or not, a lot of debug code gets enabled in
2020 Apr 06
2
F18 ready to be merged + preview of merge
Hi llvm-dev We believe we have completed enough of the agreed pre-upstreaming changes to start talking about merging F18 into LLVM. The live status is tracked at [1]. There are a few details that we have not managed to hammer out and we propose to tackle inside the LLVM monorepo. I have put a summary of these at the bottom of this mail. Does anyone have any objections to flang being merged into
2008 May 08
1
Textfields
Hey everybody, I've just merged my TextField hacking into master. It's basically a big refactoring and test addition thing, to get signals and variables report something sane. It's not complete yet, but I wanted to have it in, so we don't get too many merge conflicts when Pekka fixes the HTML parsing bugs. Here's a partial list of what's missing so far: - vertical
2020 Feb 25
2
Plan for landing flang in monorepo
Hi Eric, Old flang certainly uses C-style strings but f18 uses std::string with few exceptions. Most of the instances in f18 of “char *” aren’t really strings in the C sense – they’re not null terminated and are really just pointers into raw or cooked source files/streams. I can’t think of an instance where the compiler dynamically allocates an array of characters and uses it as a C string. -
2020 Jul 15
7
[11.0.0 Release] The release branch is here; trunk is now 12.0.0
Hello everyone, The release branch for LLVM 11 was created from the trunk at 2e10b7a39b930ef8d9c4362509d8835b221fbc0a, and the trunk version was bumped to 12.0.0. Release blockers are tracked by https://llvm.org/PR46725 Please mark any bugs, old or new, that need to be fixed before the release as blocking that bug. Please keep me in the loop via email on any bugs, commits, or other issues that
2019 Nov 18
5
[cfe-dev] RFC: Moving toward Discord and Discourse for LLVM's discussions
FWIW I'm a fan of using open-source stuff for open-source projects. Discourse looks open source, but Discord doesn't as far as I can tell (?). On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:15 AM Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello folks, > > I sent the message quoted below to llvm-dev@ just now, but it applies to > the whole community so sending an FYI