similar to: 6.0.1-rc1 has been tagged

Hi, The 6.0.1-rc2 release has been tagged. Testers may begin testing and reporting results. -Tom

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 7 Feb 2018, at 21:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> There's been a lot of merges since rc1, and hopefully the tests are in >> a better state now. >> >> 6.0.0-rc2 was just tagged, after r324506. >> >>

Dear testers, 5.0.0-rc1 has just been tagged. Please build, test and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know if there are any issues. I'll upload sources, docs, and your binaries to the pre-release website once they're ready. Thanks, Hans

On 31 Jul 2017, at 19:26, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: >> On 27 Jul 2017, at 00:41, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> 5.0.0-rc1 has just been tagged. >>> >>> Please build, test and upload binaries

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 27 Jul 2017, at 00:41, Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> 5.0.0-rc1 has just been tagged. >> >> Please build, test and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know if >> there are any issues. > > Built and tested rc1. Test failures on

Hi, I've just tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc3. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. This will be the last release candidate unless there is a major problem. I'm planning to tag the final release on Dec 19. -Tom

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc5 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371837. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc5. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc5 Binaries will be added as they become available. There is only a single change from rc4 to rc5. Once more, the hope is that this will be the last release candidate and that we can

Hello again, 9.0.0-rc4 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r371490. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc4. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc4 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are not a lot of changes from rc3 to rc4, and there are again no open release blockers, so I'm hoping this will be the last

Hi, I've tagged the LLVM 9.0.1-rc1 release. Testers can begin testing and upload binaries. I've also updated the test-release.sh script to pull from GitHub instead of SVN, if you run into any issues with the new script, let me know. -Tom

Hi, I've just tagged the 9.0.1-final release. Testers can begin uploading binaries. -Tom

Hi, I've tagged LLVM 9.0.1-rc2. Testers can begin testing and uploading binaries. If all goes well, this will be the last -rc. -Tom

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc3 was tagged today from the release_90 branch at r370450. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc3. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc3 Binaries will be added as they become available. There are currently no open release blockers, which means if nothing new comes up, the final release could ship soon and this is

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc2 was tagged yesterday from the release_90 branch at r368683. In the Git monorepo it's available as the llvmorg-9.0.0-rc2 tag. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc2 Binaries will be added as they become available. The tag went in roughly one week behind schedule (see "Upcoming Releases" at https://llvm.org), but

Hi everyone, 9.0.0-rc1 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r367217 (tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc1 in the Git monorepo). Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc1 Binaries will be added as they become available. Please file bug reports for any issues you find as blockers of https://llvm.org/PR42474 Release testers: please start your engines, run the

Hello everyone, 9.0.0-rc6 was just tagged from the release_90 branch at r372100. In the Git monorepo, it's tagged as llvmorg-9.0.0-rc6. Source code and docs are available at https://prereleases.llvm.org/9.0.0/#rc6 This is the same as rc5 plus one very minor change (r371969) that still seemed good to pick up. I'm not allocating extra time for testing this one, expecting to tag

> On 9 Feb 2018, at 10:20, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: >> On 7 Feb 2018, at 21:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>> There's been a lot of merges since rc1, and hopefully the tests are in

Dear testers, Release Candidate 3 has just been tagged [1]. Please build, test, and upload to the sftp. If there are no regressions from previous release candidates, this will be the last release candidate before the final release. Release notes can still go into the branch. Thanks again for all your work! Hans [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2016-February/009866.html

I've finished my initial set of patches to make 32-byte shadow granularity work on x86. Here is a summary of the changes from last week: - As discussed, I added a full redzone after every stack variable. - We discussed adding a -fsanitize-address-granularity=N flag, but I found the following existing flag has been sufficient for my purposes: -asan-mapping-scale N. If anyone thinks I

Bill, For some reason the llvm-symbolizer tests fail on ppc: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux/builds/182/steps/ninja%20check%201/logs/stdio because it can't be started: /home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-test/clang-ppc64le/stage1/./bin/llvm-symbolizer: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.21' not found (required by

clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz (sha1sum: 2dedc6136d7cfbac8348652c543887964d92393c) Native: All ok Cross compiling to MIPS: All ok clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz (sha1sum: f286149dbb2ea7e194c5c3719b6cded476f6e65f) All ok (aside from non-regression failures in check-all). There were two kinds of check-all failure: * mips64 sanitizers. Not a regression since