similar to: Submitting patches for LLVM -- llvm-commits vs. Phabricator?

Yup, Phabricator is generally preferred for patches. Additionally, are you subscribed to the mailing list? I can't find where I read it now, but I believe your messages are held for moderation if you aren't subscribed. You can subscribe at http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits if needed. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Christoph Kindl

Hi, > Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 09:59:56 -0600 > From: Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Submitting patches for LLVM -- llvm-commits > vs. Phabricator? > > Hi, > The current practice is to upload a

> On Jan 2, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Christoph Kindl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 09:59:56 -0600 >> From: Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> Subject:

Many git commits in the monorepo look like the following: [Tag0][Tag1] Title line Summary: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque mauris neque, porta nec tristique at, sagittis vel nisi. Fusce pharetra nunc et mauris consequat venenatis. Reviewers: username0, username1 Reviewed By: username0 Subscribers: username2, username3,

I also find the "Reviewed by" tag useful (as well as the review link), for the same reasons. In fact, I don't even use arcanist to push commits, so I do it all by hand, and only include the "Reviewed by" and "Differential Revision" tags. On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 20:55, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think

Can we fix this in reviews.llvm.org's fork of phab? https://github.com/phacility/phabricator/blob/cac3dc4983c3671ba4ec841aac8efac10744a80c/src/applications/differential/conduit/DifferentialGetCommitMessageConduitAPIMethod.php Seems straightforward(-ish) to drop the relevant fields there, that way `arc land` automatically DTRT. Jon On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 11:30 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev

The limitation with the "Reviewed by" line is that if you just use `arc` it indicates who was added as reviewer on the revision, but not who approved it. Because of this, I am wary of relying on this line for anything. If you want to know who reviewed a change, better click on the Differential Revision link and go to the source of truth. -- Mehdi On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:44 AM

I'm sure I've seen many commits with both "Reviewed by:" and "Reviewers:" tags, which look to have been done with arc (though I can't be sure). How were those generated? On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 19:12, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I tend to prune it down myself - and if the list has only one name > on it, it's usually a pretty

Thanks to both! I'll update the docs. Best, Stefanos Στις Κυρ, 1 Μαρ 2020 στις 5:24 μ.μ., ο/η Florian Hahn < florian_hahn at apple.com> έγραψε: > Hi, > > > On 1 Mar 2020, at 14:44, Stefanos Baziotis via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > I recently was granted commit access, but I'm not really sure what is the > process. > The

Hi Hal, > Documentation updates should also be reviewed. Of course, I meant that I'll open a patch in Phabricator. :) I didn't know about code-review patch, thanks. I'll defer the update of developer policy until the other patch is committed so we can have a clearer picture. Kind regards, Stefanos Στις Κυρ, 1 Μαρ 2020 στις 6:17 μ.μ., ο/η Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov>

Hi everyone, I recently was granted commit access, but I'm not really sure what is the process. The developer policy states: "You are granted *commit-after-approval* to all parts of LLVM. To get approval, submit a patch <https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#patch> to llvm-commits <http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits>. When approved, you may commit it

Hi, I'm new to LLVM development and I can't find enough information about how to contribute. I've submitted a patch on review as described in the doc: http://llvm.org/docs/Phabricator.html Here is the patch: http://reviews.llvm.org/D4788 The review passed, Phabricator says that the revision is "waiting on me". I've tried to run arc commit on my patch but it responds

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 12:28, Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't quite follow. Yes, gratuitous useless changes tend to create > merge and rebase problems and should generally be avoided. Why does it > make a difference whether they're in multiple commits though? I think you misunderstood. Our policy [1] is that independent NFC fixups on existing code

Hi All, I have tried to build llvm tip as following: cmake -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS:STRING="-DLLVM_ENABLE_DUMP" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo ../llvm After running 'make', I have got error messages like below. llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineRegisterInfo.cpp:462:67: error: no ‘void llvm::MachineRegisterInfo::dumpUses(unsigned int) const’ member function declared in class

Hello all, I am a grad student looking to get my hands wet contributing to LLVM. I have done an undergrad course in Compilers. I have some knowledge of parsers, code generation, optimization, IR and other topics taught in an undergrad course. I have worked through quite a bit of the dragon book. Is there a guide to get newbie devs up to speed on the process of contributing? Do I just build the

Hi! Some time ago my email address, that I use for committing to LLVM SVN repo has changed (nasty corporate mail changing) and now it's not aligned with email I sent to Chris according to http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access page . Unfortunately it's not possible to forward all messages from LLVM mailing lists from my old address to new one, so I wonder

Hi! I uploaded a tentative patch for the following bug in LV (https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34965) but I have some concerns about it. I would appreciate if someone with more experience in SE/PSE can provide some feedback about current tentative fix and alternative solutions described in the comments. Thanks! Diego Caballero, Intel Vectorizer Team

Hi, everyone, I've been fielding an increasing number of questions about how our code-review process in LLVM works from people who are new to our community, and it's been pointed out to me that our documentation on code reviews is both out of date and not as helpful as it could be to new developers.   http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews I would like to compose a

Your change looks almost correct. You need: - Test cases. - Add the new 'f' type to the documentation in LangRef.rst. - Check the type of the arg (f32, f64, or f128) to choose the right one of FPRegsRegClass, DFPRegsRegClass, QFPRegsRegClass. Then, please submit for review, per http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html (Typically best to do so via Phabricator,

The LLVM incubator projects have been using github PRs for reviews and so far haven't really seen any significant issues. The biggest confusion so far has not been with reviews but with the difference between "rebase and merge" and "squash and mere". We have used basically 3 different processes: Method 1: start a review with one commit on a new branch (typically in a