similar to: [6.0.0 Release] The final tag is in

Uploaded ubuntu, SLES11, SLES12 binaries. 4907dbd37f4e5265a2f1252d9d7b5e5b0a9c0ec1 clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-14.04.tar.xz 360b26fcd9eafe5ca9c4baa89c38339bc587c094 clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-sles11.3.tar.xz ce525cf949ef86409bc3f4f492035225989eecfd clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-sles12.2.tar.xz On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers < release-testers

It was just brought to my attention that the RPATH configuration isn't uniform among the libraries produced by the release. Some use $ORIGIN../lib/ and others have none. Is this by design? It seems like it might be ideal for all of them to be configured the same way. If that makes sense I'll create a corresponding feature request. $ for f in

Isn't libc++.so dependent on libc++abi.so? On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: > From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime > libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think they don't > have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, so what would be > the advantage of having

Hi Hans, Looks ok here. I've uploaded the binaries. SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz)= 5ff062f4838ac51a3500383faeb0731440f1c4473bf892258314a49cbaa66e61 SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz)= 39820007ef6b2e3a4d05ec15feb477ce6e4e6e90180d00326e6ab9982ed8fe82 SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz)=

From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think they don't have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, so what would be the advantage of having RPATH set on them? Regards, Jonas Am 2018-03-05 17:23, schrieb Brian Cain via llvm-dev: > It was just brought to my attention that the RPATH

libc++.so should be a linker script that automatically pulls in libc++abi (see "Failed to read file header" in your output). And IIRC libc++abi is only one possible implementation that may be used by libc++, but I'm no expert here... Am 2018-03-05 17:33, schrieb Brian Cain: > Isn't libc++.so dependent on libc++abi.so? > > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Jonas

Dear testers, 6.0.0-rc3 was just tagged, after r325901 on the branch. There are still a few open blockers, but I'm not sure we'll actually end up blocking on all of them. So depending on what comes up, this release candidate is probably pretty close to what the final release will look like (I'm still hoping for more release notes, though). I'm hoping we can get to

Dear testers, 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. Please test, let me know how it goes, and upload binaries. Thanks, Hans

Hi, No major issues seen so far for mips. Binaries uploaded. SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-rc3-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz)= 6e4fab79cc341a9084dab94cced108daff39fcde14a11e8d7ae454e9f92cb77c SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-rc3-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz)= 54887a039d3d7ccff17a0c7245f4c9d778a1c22f96b619db554849da55293d61 SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz)=

Hi Hans, I'm seeing one unexpected failure: libc++ :: std/input.output/stream.buffers/streambuf/streambuf.protected/streambuf.put.area/pbump2gig.pass.cpp Test logs show: Standard Error: -- terminating with uncaught exception of type std::length_error: basic_string -- but only on my big endian MIPS machine. I have filed PR36373 for the above failure. I've looked at the failures

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:03, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: >> >> Am 2018-01-18 14:55, schrieb Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev: >>> On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers >>> <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> Start

Dear testers, Start your engines; 6.0.0-rc1 was just tagged. I know there are still open blockers and it's early in the process in a way, but I'd like to find out where we are. Please run the test script, let me know the results, and upload binaries. Thanks, Hans

On 19 Jan 2018, at 17:11, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: >> On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:03, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: >>> >>> Am 2018-01-18 14:55, schrieb Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev: >>>> On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg

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. > > Please test, let me know how it goes, and upload binaries. Built, tested and uploaded: SHA256

Am 2018-01-18 14:55, schrieb Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev: > On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers > <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Start your engines; 6.0.0-rc1 was just tagged. >> >> I know there are still open blockers and it's early in the process in >> a way, but I'd like to find out where we are. Please run the

Dear testers, The final version of 3.9.0 was just tagged (from the 3.9 branch at r280312). There were no changes after rc3. This took a little longer than expected, but on the up side that means it's had more time to be tested. Please build the final binaries and upload to the sftp. For others following along: this means 3.9.0 is complete, but it will take a few days to get the tarballs

On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Start your engines; 6.0.0-rc1 was just tagged. > > I know there are still open blockers and it's early in the process in > a way, but I'd like to find out where we are. Please run the test > script, let me know the results, and upload binaries. At the moment I

Dear testers, 3.7.0-rc1 was just tagged; please start your testing engines :-) Upload binaries to the sftp and report your results to this thread. I'm sorry for the delay between branching and tagging. The changes to the release script took a little longer than I hoped. Thanks for helping with the release, and do let me know of any issues, questions, etc. The tracking bug for release

On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:03, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: > > Am 2018-01-18 14:55, schrieb Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev: >> On 17 Jan 2018, at 18:53, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers >> <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> Start your engines; 6.0.0-rc1 was just tagged. >>> I know there are still open blockers and it's early

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