similar to: LLVM 3.2 Release!

Hello LLVM People, Welcome to LLVM 3.0! Get it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ or read about it: http://llvm.org/releases/3.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html This release represents approximately 6 months of development over LLVM 2.9, and delivers a large number of improvements. Some of the bigger leaps include a new register allocator (which can provide substantial performance improvements in

LLVM 3.4 is now available! Download it now, or read the release notes. This is a big new release with a lot of features. Clang now supports all of the features in the current working draft of the upcoming C++ standard, provisionally named C++1y. The static analyzer has greatly improved C++ support, produces fewer false positives and catches more bugs. Clang also includes a few new

LLVM 3.4 is now available! Download it now, or read the release notes. This is a big new release with a lot of features. Clang now supports all of the features in the current working draft of the upcoming C++ standard, provisionally named C++1y. The static analyzer has greatly improved C++ support, produces fewer false positives and catches more bugs. Clang also includes a few new

Anton, > Pawel, > > We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but > I think you should understand the implications of your actions. > > You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the > ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and > rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to

Pawel, First, all your help with the 3.2 release is greatly appreciated. I do not think anyone is saying otherwise. I apologize for the lack of documentation regarding this issue. I do ask that you consult with previous release manager (myself or Bill) to determine what the best course of action is. There is a lot of room to improve our release process, but its a collaborative effort. You are

Hello LLVM People, Welcome to LLVM 3.1! Get it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ or read about it: http://llvm.org/releases/3.1/docs/ReleaseNotes.html This release represents approximately 6 months of development over LLVM 3.0, delivers a vast range of improvements and new features. Some of the most visible features include greatly expanded C++'11 support in Clang (including lambdas,

On 1/11/2013 2:51 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at

Pawel, We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but I think you should understand the implications of your actions. You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to the users of FreeBSD, Gentoo, etc. Even worse,

LLVM 3.5 is now available! Get it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ or read the release notes here: http://llvm.org/releases/3.5.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html http://llvm.org/releases/3.5.0/tools/clang/docs/ReleaseNotes.html This is a great new release with a whole host of new features. The LLVM optimizer and backend sees continued performance improvement and compile time improvements, as well as

On 1/11/2013 3:59 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:

LLVM 3.6.1 is now available! Download it now, or read the release notes. This release contains bug-fixes for the LLVM 3.6.0 release and is both API and ABI compatible with 3.6.0. Fixes in this release include: - Large number of bug fixes for MIPS target. - Bug fixes for R600 target including several fixes for Volcanic Islands. - Several bug fixes for core libraries LLVM 3.6.1 would not be

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> > >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski > >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 1/10/2013 12:11 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > > Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> writes: > > > >> Clang is good enough to bootstrap itself on practically > >> any platform I can think of or it can be cross-bootstrapped > >> if needed. > > >

On 1/10/2013 12:11 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> writes: > >> Clang is good enough to bootstrap itself on practically >> any platform I can think of or it can be cross-bootstrapped >> if needed. > > You're completely ignoring communities that compile code outside > llvm+clang. Any compiler chosen by that group

LLVM 3.3 is now available! Get it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ or read about it here: http://llvm.org/releases/3.3/docs/ReleaseNotes.html LLVM 3.3 is a big release: it adds new targets for the AArch64 and AMD R600 GPU architectures, adds support for IBM's z/Architecture S390 systems, and major enhancements for the PowerPC backend (including support for PowerPC 2.04/2.05/2.06

Mark, > Pawel, > You don't know me but I'm one of the release engineers for > BIND 9 and BIND 8 before that. I have been doing release engineering > for about 1.5 decades now. One of the things you DO NOT do is > replace a tarball. Machines get compromised. Good distributions > get replaced with tainted versions. One of the few ways the rest > of the world has

On 1/14/2013 12:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> Brooks, >> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >>>> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer >>>>> wrote:

Right, but maybe if you switch to using tolower_l() and pass an appropriate locale you can get it to work the same way. I'm not sure what locale that would have to be, but it needs to match whatever NTFS uses for its $upcase file. On Oct 3, 2011, at 12:19 PM, Nikola Smiljanic wrote: > CharLowerW does the right thing. But I still need Windows.h to use it :) > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011

Note: /Za shouldn't be used. P.S. I'd say more, but it'd only water down the message. ------------------------------ From: Nikola Smiljanic Sent: 9/30/2011 12:45 AM To: Bryce Cogswell Cc: cfe-dev; llvmdev Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Unicode path handling on Windows I tried to do the conversion to lowercase inside GetFullPath by adding an additional bool parameter to this

CharLowerW does the right thing. But I still need Windows.h to use it :) On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Bryce Cogswell <bryceco at gmail.com> wrote: > Locale-specific is not what we want, but I don't believe Windows exposes an > alternative API that does what we want. (Does CharLower give a different > answer than tolower?) > > However, looking over the FileManager code