similar to: [LLVMdev] IMPORTANT Please Read: Merge Finished

Hi all, I'm going to start the merge that I told you about last night. This won't take long, but during that time commit message emails will be disabled. Please hold off committing new patches until we're finished. Sorry for the inconvenience. -bw

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

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

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

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

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

As you all have undoubtedly noticed, I recently did Yet Another Merge to Apple's GCC top-of-tree. This merge was prompted by several important fixes in the "blocks" implementation. There are still many testcases that need to be moved over, but those can come at our leisure. I compiled both the "Apple way" and the "FSF way". It also passed the tests in

I'm getting the error below on Ubuntu Hardy on ia32 on r55688. John make[3]: Entering directory `/home/regehr/llvm-gcc/build/gcc' gcc -c -g -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../gcc

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Nick Lewycky<nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > 2009/7/15 Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> >> >> 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 >> >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex L" <arphaman at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Anton Korobeynikov" <anton at korobeynikov.info>, "Bill Wendling" <isanbard at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:17:16

2009/7/15 Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> > > 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

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.

Hi Bill, I committed a fix already as r355743 [1], and it fixes `test2` as well. I believe we should merge this into 8.0. /Eric [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/680e865c313a80b6ec329abde61e1f0c66bdc103 On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:46 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > The attached patch may help matters, though it now fails because

FYI, it should apply cleanly. -bw On Sep 14, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Sep 14, 2009, at 7:51 AM, Zoltan Varga wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Would it be possible to merge this commit: >> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=80960 >> >> to the llvm 2.6 branch ? Without it, incomplete unwind info is >> generated

These should be fixed now. Sorry for the mess. -bw On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > I'm seeing ~100 new failures in the gcc testsuite due to the test > file being doubled or tripled, as below. This appears to affect > only files that were newly imported from gcc-4.2 in the recent > merge. Does anybody have an idea for how to mechanize fixing these

Hi again, I was studying and building the lfort repository as I said I would do, but after a while I decided that I would like to work on flang instead. So, I forked flang and so far I've had pretty good success with it, here's what I've done: - Merged a pull request from a github user Michael Gottesman(He added support for latest llvm and cmake) - Fixed character literal continuation

Hi Developers, This is to clarify which patches may be merged into the 3.5 branch. * All doc changes may go in. In fact, you’re encouraged to update the branch's ReleaseNotes.rst file! :-) * All non-documentation patches should first receive approval from the appropriate code maintainer. (A blanket approval is acceptable for the first phase of testing.) * If your patch fixes a major bug,

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 4:22 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Bill, > > > > Thanks for answering. To make sure that we are on the same page, let's > agree on definitions :) Here, by

On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > I'm seeing ~100 new failures in the gcc testsuite due to the test > file being doubled or tripled, as below. This appears to affect > only files that were newly imported from gcc-4.2 in the recent > merge. Does anybody have an idea for how to mechanize fixing these > (I doubt you can count on the APPLE LOCAL

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