similar to: Phabricator acting funny

Hey Guys ! I'm interested to participate in Google Summer of Code 2018 for LLVM. Any Projects (new features or reimplementation) related to recent " Meltdown & Spectre " Problem. I'm a beginner in Compiler Technology. Could you please recommend some videos or blog post about "*Introduction to LLVM internals ". *Because I find it difficult to understand LLVM IR

Hi Duncan, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Manuel, > > > we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing >> code >> reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews >> by >> following the documentation at

> On 8 Jan 2016, at 15:43, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/8/2016 9:39 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> Huh? Under "Leap into action" on the bottom of the page, there is "Close >> revision". > > Hmm. Indeed. I don't know why I didn't notice it before. Oh well,

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:09 AM Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: cfe-dev <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of John > Marshall > > via cfe-dev > > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2020 7:04 AM > > To: Jonas Devlieghere via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> >

See screenshot. :) Is this supposed to work, or should I use a different, non- at google.com account? Thanks for any clues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191115/e8f5e795/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 1:15 PM Keith Smiley <keithbsmiley at gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW GitHub's code review tools have improved significantly in the past > few years. At this point with reviews and manual control over resolving / > unresolving comments I think many previous complaints I've seen about > GitHub vs Phabricator have been alleviated. > To be clear: this

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 1:12 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > Mehdi, Fangrui: are you willing to take on maintenance? > Sure, let's work out a transition plan offline! > > Otherwise, Shoaib, the cost is currently: > ~$300-350 / mo for sendgrid (300-350k emails / month) > ~$2k / mo for cloud (we currently run on 1 machine O.O, plus storage & >

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:23 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I use GH daily at my current employer and i can tell you that the issues with rebasing are very real. Unless you only use merge commits you are going to have a very bad time Would it be practical to use merge commits during review (never rebasing) & then rebasing/squashing to

Using an example provided by "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Asterisk", I made the following addition to my extensions.conf file: [inbound-analog] exten => s,1,Wait(1) exten => s,2,SetVar(counter=0) exten => s,3,Answer() exten => s,4,Wait(1) exten => s,5,DigitTimeout(15) exten => s,6,ResponseTimeout(10)

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab. > > You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request by > definition compares your working copy against master. > > This is not very compatible with LLVMs approach to incremental > development. For

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 9:56 AM Hubert Tong via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:32 PM Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Just my 2 cents here: we are working on enabling this as a part of >> bugzilla migration as PRs and issues are very tied inside GitHub. Stay >> tuned for

On 6/22/20 2:34 AM, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:45 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > There’s also some feature regressions in GH vs Phab. > > You *must* initiate a review via a pull request, and pull request > by definition compares your working

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:25 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:15 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04 PM Mehdi AMINI via cfe-dev

I'm not sure a decision was already made as such. I think it's more that there was a flurry of conversation last time with lots of conflicting opinions, and then the conversation just fizzled out. FWIW, I like Phabricator but I'm willing to try GitHub. Overall I think we should take the same approach that eventually led to Phabricator being widely adopted: We should allow GitHub

Hi Manuel, > we'd like to open the use of Phabricator as an optional tool for doing code > reviews to a wider audience. Please feel free to start your code reviews by > following the documentation at http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html. sorry for the silly question but... how do you sign up? The "sign up" section doesn't have a "sign up here" link. It

Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes: > Hi Manuel, > > I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how > I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're deploying: http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html#status That'll lead you here: https://github.com/r4nt/llvm-reviews

On 27 May 2015 at 12:29, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> writes: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how >> I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). > > Chandler updated the llvm phabricator doc to point at what we're deploying: > >

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 09:29:01AM -0600, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: > On 1/7/2016 1:08 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev wrote: > > > >One thing that bit me a few times is the fact that the Differential > >Revision: line must be the last (non-empty) line in the commit message. > >If you add things like “This fixes …” behind it then it won’t get >

I can’t really provide a doc, but i can describe what I believe to be the biggest problem. In a GH PR, comments are associated with commit hashes. If a commit hash ceases to exist, so do all comments associated with it. The comments are quite literally destroyed and irretrievable. What this means for LLVM is that everyone will have to completely stop using history rewriting operations. No