similar to: [LLVMdev] Reminder: Review LLVM docs

This is just a reminder that we could use some help reviewing the LLVM documentation for the 2.0 release. In particular, the follow documents are some of the most important and should get priority: http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html (MOST IMPORTANT! We need help!) http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html http://llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html Please finish all documentation review by

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:41 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote: > Okay, so, it sounds to me like LLVM basically treats strong definitions as protected, then. Should we just formalize that? > > I guess the proposal here would be: > 1.

Thanks for the comments! Responses below. Teresa On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-Jul-14, at 13:33, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > > As mentioned in the Updated ThinLTO RFC ( > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/086211.html), I am > sending the

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > To: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:34:56 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: Add an "interposible" linkage

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:03 AM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info > wrote: > > I think it emits valid output, but I don't think it handles weak symbols > > correctly, as COFF supports true weak symbols, but this code appears to > turn > > them into a linkonce section which is not quite the same thing. > Yes. This was intentional, since: > 1. At

I expect llvm.org to need another 30 minutes of downtime. Thank you for your patience. Thanks, Tanya On Apr 25, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Tanya Lattner <lattner at apple.com> wrote: > Just a reminder that llvm.org will be rebooted in 15 minutes, and will be down for about 30 minutes or less. It will be rebooted a couple times so you might see it come up and go back down, but do not get

What, the deadline is tomorrow?!? The deadline for proposals snuck up on me, and I'm sure many of you forgot as well. Therefore, I am extending the deadline. I have received some great talk proposals, so keep them coming. However, I have very few tutorials, BoFs, posters, or lightening talk proposals. So please, get those proposals in and lets make this year the best developer meeting yet!

> On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> Now, there are a number of things about linkage that are kindof orthogonal, >> and it would be nice to model them more orthogonally. That would be a major >> change in representation, though. Absent the will to do that, I propose >> that we: >> - remove/deprecate

> On Monday 02 February 2009 13:20, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >> Just a reminder, I'll be re-creating the 2.5 branch tonight at 9pm PST. > > What does re-creating mean? Why can't the previously-created 2.5 branch > simply be updated? It means deleting the branch and creating a new one. > I ask because svn history will look a little wierd and it makes it harder for

Add Rafael here. Because he basically ask me the same question in my commit. I wonder why clang choose to do unnamed_addr instead of just do visibility hidden. If linkonce_odr + unnamed_addr is just hidden, is the only difference linkonce_odr + unnamed_addr not in the symbol table? Steven > On Feb 9, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > I wonder

On Feb 12, 2010, at 3:02 PM, Douglas Gregor wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2010, at 8:25 AM, David Greene wrote: > >> On Thursday 11 February 2010 18:17:33 Tanya Lattner wrote: >>> Just a reminder that the 2.7 code freeze is on Feb 21st. >>> >>> All major changes should be committed approximately 1 week before the code >>> freeze to ensure adequate

Just a reminder that llvm.org will be rebooted in 15 minutes, and will be down for about 30 minutes or less. It will be rebooted a couple times so you might see it come up and go back down, but do not get alarmed. Thanks, Tanya

Isn't #2 actually changing the behavior by changing the visibility while llvm.compiler_used seems actually closest to current behavior to me? The visibility hidden would break comparison of function as you mentioned, which is not the case with auto-hide if I didn't miss anything. -- Mehdi 2018-02-07 11:29 GMT-08:00 Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > I am definitely in favor of this if it is ok with Tanya. > > I hope to spend some time in the next few weeks on tracking down > miscompiles, and it would be great to get Clang to the > "early-but-usable-beta" stage so it makes sense to roll binaries for > 2.7. > > Tanya, I can

Hi Anton, You're already a part of the llvm development team by participating actively on the llvm development list :) If you wish we can put you on: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/Developers.html Great to have you on the team, welcome! We (Jeff, Morten, Paolo, the rest of the team and I) are looking forward to cooperate with you and to push win32 and mingw versions even further to stable and

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 10:39:46PM -0800, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm I'm getting a build error: llvm[2]: Compiling llvmAsmParser.cpp for Release build /rest/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y: In function `int llvmAsmparse()': /rest/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y:2105: error: expected `;' before '}' token

I am definitely in favor of this if it is ok with Tanya. I hope to spend some time in the next few weeks on tracking down miscompiles, and it would be great to get Clang to the "early-but-usable-beta" stage so it makes sense to roll binaries for 2.7. Tanya, I can also do the x86-32-pc-linux release testing if no one else steps up. - Daniel On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Douglas

Just a reminder, I'll be re-creating the 2.5 branch tonight at 9pm PST. -Tanya

LLVMers, The LLVM 2.2 release code freeze and branch creation is less than 1 month away. All major changes should be commited to svn at least 1 week before the code freeze. As a reminder, here is the complete release schedule (which can also be found on the main page in the right sidebar): Jan 16, 2008: Branch creation/Code Freeze (9PM PST). Jan 18, 2008: First round of pre-release testing

On Monday 02 February 2009 13:20, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > Just a reminder, I'll be re-creating the 2.5 branch tonight at 9pm PST. What does re-creating mean? Why can't the previously-created 2.5 branch simply be updated? I ask because svn history will look a little wierd and it makes it harder for third parties to track revisions and do merges.