similar to: [LLVMdev] Upcoming Releases

LLVMers, It is now 1 week before I will create the 1.9 release branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that needs to be fixed before the

This is just a friendly reminder that the 1.8 release is coming up. Here are the important dates: * July 12, 2006: Email sent out asking platform maintainers to XFAIL tests, check for regression/file bugs, and check in any final stuff for the release. * July 19, 2006: Code freeze and release branch created. Documentation review. * July 26, 2006: Pre-release online for testing * August 2, 2006:

This is just a friendly reminder that the 1.9 release is coming up. The code freeze is just a month away. Here are the important dates: * October 30, 2006: Email sent out asking platform maintainers to XFAIL tests, check for regression/file bugs, and check in any final stuff for the release. * November 6, 2006: Code freeze and release branch created. Documentation review. * November 13, 2006:

LLVMers, Sorry for the delay in this email. The 1.8 release has been pushed out 1 week, so today marks 1 week before I create the 1.8 branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test

LLVM Developers, It is now 1 week before I will create the 2.0 release branch. I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that needs to be fixed before

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > I'm asking that all platform maintainers and available llvm developers > review the nightly tester results. Please XFAIL any dejagnu tests that are > currently failing, fix any warnings, and review the results of the full > llvm test suite. If a test failure is determined to be something that > needs to be fixed before the release, please fix it or

I will be creating the branch at 9PM PST. Please refrain from checking in any large changes until after the branch creation. I'm still seeing unexpected dejagnu failures for PPC and X86. Platform maintainers, please XFAIL these and file bugzilla bugs. Email me if you have concerns or questions. -Tanya

On Sunday 28 November 2004 00:24, Tanya Lattner wrote: Just some comments from a QMTest user... Note however, that even with them, dejagnu looks better. > Cons of QMTest: > 1) You have to use the gui to add directories. I think you're wrong. Manually creating a directory would work, as QMTest does not place anything special in directories. > 2) You have to use the gui to XFAIL

Tanya Lattner wrote: > I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, > which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the > appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot > of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision > carefully and before the 1.4 release. > > Here are the

I'd like to tag and create the branch for llvm and llvm-test soon. Does anyone still have tests to XFAIL, warnings to fix, or other critical bug fixes? Please respond to this mail and let me know ASAP if you are done or need more time. -Tanya

LLVMers, Its been over 6 months since the last LLVM release, and there have been a huge number of improvements in LLVM CVS. Chris asked me to fill the role of release manager, and would like to get the release out the door in the next couple weeks. The target release date for 1.7 is April 20th. We would appreciate help from anyone who is available. The process will be as follows: 1) All

I've finished adding the -rundejagnu option to the nightly tester script, which was the last step to fully support Dejagnu. I think now is the appropriate time to discuss keeping QMTest or switching to Dejagnu. A lot of work went into using QMTest, so I think we should make this decision carefully and before the 1.4 release. Here are the pros and cons in my eyes, please feel free to add your

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > I just updated again (both llvm and llvm-gcc). The only thing that > changed was: > P test/Regression/CFrontend/2005-12-04-DeclarationLineNumbers.c > > The regression test below was done *with* your llvm-gcc changes to llvm- > expand.c. I don't know what the failures are all about, but I will try > it again. If its the same,

Hi, Tanya! >* November 6, 2006: Code freeze and release branch created. Documentation > revisions. Does it mean that I can commit my changes to LLVM until November 6? Thanks. Tony. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061030/1e4ae18f/attachment.html>

The various intrinsic assert/crashes should all be fixed on mainline CVS (they are PR733, which I just fixed). The only ones that I'm wary of are: XPASS: /proj/llvm/build/../llvm/test/Regression/CFrontend/2004-02-20- StaticRedeclare.c.tr FAIL: /proj/llvm/build/../llvm/test/Regression/CFrontend/2005-12-04- DeclarationLineNumbers.c: In the former case, I would guess that the test isn't

No. Note the qualifying phrase "for releases" on Tanya's statement. If, during release testing, a regression is found on ARM compared to 2.9 results, it is not required by process to be considered a release blocker. That does not mean features can or should be enabled which knowingly break ARM. That's an entirely different situation. -Jim On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Rotem,

Hi Tanya, The new type-legalization mode (-promote-elements) which enables vector-select in LLVM (and a nice perf boost for several workloads), is currently disabled because of a _single_ bug in the ARM codegen which makes a few tests fail. If ARM is not a supported target, can I mark these tests as 'XFAIL' and enable vector-select support in LLVM ? Thanks, Nadav -----Original

I just updated again (both llvm and llvm-gcc). The only thing that changed was: P test/Regression/CFrontend/2005-12-04-DeclarationLineNumbers.c The regression test below was done *with* your llvm-gcc changes to llvm- expand.c. I don't know what the failures are all about, but I will try it again. If its the same, I'll let you know. Reid. On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 16:20 -0500, Chris Lattner

Hi Tanya, Please apply these patches to the release branch: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of- Mon-20061106/039776.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of- Mon-20061106/039781.html Thanks, Evan On Nov 7, 2006, at 10:39 PM, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > > I created the 1.9 release branch last night. As a reminder, please > do not > check

Tanya Lattner wrote: > >> 1. I'm still looking for volunteers to test MacOS X and Solaris. >> If you'd like to volunteer, please email the list to let us know. > > > I'll do minimal testing on Sparc. I'm not going to look into any > regressions though since no one has been really watching Sparc since I > graduated and I am sure there are