similar to: [LLVMdev] IMPORTANT Please Read: Merging Now

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 80000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] IMPORTANT Please Read: Merging Now"

2008 Mar 18
0
[LLVMdev] IMPORTANT Please Read: Merge Finished
Hi all, I finished the merge. It's safe to commit things again. Please let me know if you have any problems. -bw
2014 Aug 21
6
[LLVMdev] [3.5 Release] Release Candidate 3 Now Available
The third 3.5 release candidate is now available. Please pick up sources and binaries here: https://llvm.org/pre-release/3.5 Run it through its phases and report any bugs you find! Share and enjoy! -bw
2009 Jul 15
1
[LLVMdev] IMPORTANT: Test Your Changes Before Committing Them!!
The tree has been broken since late last night. This is completely unacceptable! We have had check-ins which didn't even COMPILE! The build bots have been complaining all night, but no one has bothered to look at their messages and figure out whether it was their patches that caused the problem. This wastes a huge amount of time trying to figure out what's going on. In the future, it may
2009 Jul 15
3
[LLVMdev] please stabilize the trunk
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Bill Wendling<isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> The core problem, in my opinion, is that people *don't* pay attention >> to the build bot failure messages that come along. > > That's largely because of the number of false positives. > There
2014 Aug 25
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [3.5 Release] Release Candidate 3 Now Available
The ARM binaries seem to be corrupt. Although correctly signed, the xz file seems to be truncated arm7% unxz < clang+llvm-3.5.0-rc3-armv7a-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz | wc -c unxz: (stdin): Unexpected end of input 133214381 M.E.O. On Aug 21, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Ahem. And now for the correct URL: > >
2009 Jul 15
0
[LLVMdev] please stabilize the trunk
That depends on what you call a false positive. The public buildbot regularly fails because of mailing Frontend tests, and I have had continues failures of some DejaGNU tests for a long time on some builders. Its not a false positive per se, but one starts to ignore the failures because they aren't unexpected. - Daniel On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Bill Wendling<isanbard at
2013 Dec 05
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4rc2 Binaries Now Available
+grosbach Hi Hal, Re (1): Jim is our resident ARM expert. Adding him here. Re (2): There are a ton of simple programs that have been reported over the last month that are failing at higher levels. It's quite disturbing, really. I don't have a lot of time to debug these (it's no longer my main job to work on LLVM). I'll try to press people as much as possible. -bw On Wed, Dec
2013 Oct 12
0
[LLVMdev] "target-features" and "target-cpu" attributes
FYI: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-October/066389.html Please read and let me know you comments. -bw On Oct 11, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > Looking forward to these changes! Thanks for working on it. > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I
2013 Dec 04
4
[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4rc2 Binaries Now Available
The LLVM 3.4rc2 binaries are now available for testing! Please download them and compile and test things. See if it breaks your code! Please file bugs for any issues you encounter. At this point, we’re only accepting fixes for regressions from 3.3. Share and enjoy! -bw
2013 Oct 11
2
[LLVMdev] "target-features" and "target-cpu" attributes
Looking forward to these changes! Thanks for working on it. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I can try my best, but it would be a bit tricky to get it all finished by > then... > > -bw > > On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > > Bill, > > Are there
2013 Dec 04
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4rc2 Binaries Now Available
Bill, et al., FYI, there are currently two issues that I'm tracking that should be fixed prior to release: 1. PowerPC self-hosting is currently broken(*), triggered by a change made to improve if conversion on ARM. There is a patch on the commits list that fixes problems seen by self hosting (and, if nothing else, that patch should likely go into 3.4), but I don't think that any of us
2009 Jul 15
3
[LLVMdev] please stabilize the trunk
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Dale Johannesen<dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 15, 2009, at 1:43 PMPDT, Török Edwin wrote: >> On 2009-07-15 23:24, Dale Johannesen wrote: >>> On Jul 15, 2009, at 11:52 AMPDT, Stuart Hastings wrote: > >>> I wonder if we might be able to automate the stabilization somewhat. >>> I'm not at all sure this can be
2014 Aug 27
3
[LLVMdev] [3.5 Release] Release Candidate 3 Now Available
See http://llvm.org/PR19289 for lots of details. It had already been reported before but I had missed it and so had most others. =[ I'm pretty sure this breaks every 32-bit debian based Linux distro. I've asked David Majnemer to try to confirm or refute that. If it does impact every 32-bit debian based Linux distro, I think this should be a release blocker sad as I am to say it. CC-ing
2006 Jul 26
1
[LLVMdev] Downtime for llvm.org
The website isn't working for me. -bw On Jul 24, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > CVS isn't working for me still. Anyone else having problem? > > Evan > On Jul 24, 2006, at 8:16 PM, John Criswell wrote: > >> Evan Cheng wrote: >>> Any idea when it would be back up? We are in release crunch mode >>> here. Not having access to the CVS server is
2008 Nov 03
2
[LLVMdev] Buildbot now up and new build failures
No :) I'm trying to start by having something that keeps people from breaking the build and tests (by letting them submit patches and being whiny 3 minutes after something breaks). Once that is done, we can move to something that keeps all the languages in good shape. I think if i simply made it do everything at once, people would just ignore it. At least, that's my experience :)
2013 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] "target-features" and "target-cpu" attributes
Hi Dmitry, I can try my best, but it would be a bit tricky to get it all finished by then... -bw On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > Bill, > > Are there any chances that you complete it before 3.4 is branched? > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:16 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 2013, at
2008 Nov 03
0
[LLVMdev] Buildbot now up and new build failures
That's cool. And I agree that it if didn't work, people would ignore it. :-) At the moment, we have only Duncan and a couple of Fortran guys to tell us when an Apple merge has broken something. I'm sure that they would welcome an early detection system. :-) -bw On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > No :) > > I'm trying to
2013 Jun 07
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [3.3 Release] 3.3rc3 Now Available
On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > It's probably PR12517. > > Looking at the clang binary, it's got a /home/ dir in RPATH: > > $ objdump -p clang+llvm-3.3rc3-Ubuntu-12.04.2-x86_64/bin/clang | grep RPATH > RPATH >
2009 Jul 16
3
[LLVMdev] please stabilize the trunk
On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:48 PMPDT, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > That depends on what you call a false positive. The public buildbot > regularly fails because of mailing Frontend tests, and I have had > continues failures of some DejaGNU tests for a long time on some > builders. Its not a false positive per se, but one starts to ignore > the failures because they aren't unexpected. Yes.
2013 Jun 07
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [3.3 Release] 3.3rc3 Now Available
I'm not sure I follow. Will the final binaries have a bad RPATH or not? A 1sec startup pause on some (admittedly crazy) systems seems like a big deal to me. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > > It's probably PR12517. > > > >