similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 'Code Owners'

Hi Everyone, I'm happy to say that LLVM has made many leaps and bounds since the last update in November. Because we are bumping the major version number with this release, we're letting the release go for twice as long as our planned release schedule (6 months instead of 3). We are currently half way through the LLVM 2.0 development cycle. So far, many important and invasive changes

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > >>> Can you provide some examples of the problems you are seeing? >> >> >> Here is what happens. >> >> I get a message "could you please include/add/merge this r16xxxx into >> 3.2?". And my immediate reaction is sure, no problem this

On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > >> SelectionDAG is big enough to have multiple owners. Legalizer, dag combine, etc. can each have a separate owner. > > I don't think that makes sense given our model of code owner. The important task

LLVM 2.0 is done! Download it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ or view the release notes: http://llvm.org/releases/2.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html LLVM 2.0 is a great release in many ways. It includes a wide range of new features, new optimizations, better codegen, and new targets. We were also able to signficantly revise several core aspects of the LLVM IR and design (such as the type system

Hi All, Here are my notes for the LLVM 1.8 release, please send me feedback :). I'm sure I've forgotten and overlooked something, if so, please let me know! <Note: we're back to 3-month release cycle: yay!> ----- 8< ----- 8< ----- High Level Changes: *. Jim has finished enough support for DWARF debugging information that it is now enabled by default in

Hi Anton, I do apologise - I was under the impression that you were. Re-reading http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners, I see you're actually down for EH, debug info and Windows. Sorry about that! J ________________________________________ From: Anton Korobeynikov [anton at korobeynikov.info] Sent: 05 October 2011 20:46 To: James Molloy Cc: Seb; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re:

LLVM 1.8 is available now! Download it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ Release notes here: http://llvm.org/releases/1.8/docs/ReleaseNotes.html This is a great new release with great new features and lots of refinements (better codegen, faster compiles, bugs fixed). One particularly nice feature of this release is that we're back to a regular 3-month release cycle, allowing users to have

On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> >> On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code

LLVM 1.9 is available now! Download it here: http://llvm.org/ releases/ or view the release here: http://llvm.org/releases/1.9/docs/ ReleaseNotes.html This is a huge new release with many improvements, new features, better codegen, faster compiles, and many bugs fixed. One telling feature is that LLVM now correctly builds itself and passes all its regression tests when self-hosted: an

> This approach is fine for casual reader but > does not work for scripting or any automated > way of dealing with the build. Will you please clarify how the automation / scripting helps with the patch approval process? > I would like to propose addition of the > "folder/file (F)" field. The format > would be the same as used by Joe,Owen > and Justin This won't

> Understanding the internal llvm/clang structure is easy, > deducing the correct code owner is not due to the > vague and changing nature of the CODE_OWNERS.TXT Does not seem to me and many people around. If in doubt - ask at ML or IRC. > "Exception handling, Windows codegen, ARM EABI" Just for your information - this covers some lines in some files in llvm/CodeGen, some

Hi Evan, Please note that I'm not trying to compile from C code, I try to generate functions at run-time directly. I want to keep it target-independent too, so I can't use intrinsics either. Cheers, -Nicolas -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Evan Cheng Sent: Thursday, 08 May, 2008 23:31 To: LLVM

Here's issue 48. I'm guessing I'm going to get issue 49 as soon as I hit send... On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, <llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Send LLVMdev mailing list submissions to > llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > or, via

On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: >> >> lib/Bitcode/*

>> This approach is fine for casual reader but >> does not work for scripting or any automated >> way of dealing with the build. > Will you please clarify how the automation / scripting helps with the > patch approval process? Generally release patch process works like this: - patch gets checked-in on the trunk - developer sends message to the code owner who approves

On Nov 13, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > SelectionDAG is big enough to have multiple owners. Legalizer, dag combine, etc. can each have a separate owner. I don't think that makes sense given our model of code owner. The important task here is ensuring that each piece gets reviewed. Splitting things up at such a fine level doesn't help with

Hi Evan, Actually the unrecognized commas disappeared with the patch. What remains is a call to ".local" which doesn't exist in x86 or at least is not compilable by g++. Ashwin On 5/25/06, Ashwin Chandra <ashwin.chandra1 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Evan, > I updated cvs and recompilled llvm. Still getting some unrecognized commas > in the compilation of the

On Nov 14, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Nov 13, 2012, at 11:43 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> SelectionDAG is big enough to have multiple owners. Legalizer, dag combine, etc. can each have a

llvm does not automatically vectorize your scalar code (as least for now). You have to write gcc generic vector code or use vector builtins. Evan On May 8, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Matthijs, > > Yes, I've turned off the link-time optimizations (otherwise it just > propagates my constant vectors and immediate prints the result). :-) > > Here's

Hi all, We branched for the 3.1 release! (Yay!) If there are any fixes which you think should go into the release, please contact the code owners (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners) so that they can approve the patches. No patches will be accepted into the 3.1 release without prior approval! This should be a great release! :-) -bw