similar to: [LLVMdev] Pretty Please Fix Top Of Tree

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

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

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

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

On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> A debug or release build? >> >> -bw > > Both, actually. Weird. I see a potential problem, though. The code is like this: void dumpToDOUT(SparseBitVector<> *bitmap) { dump(*bitmap, DOUT); } where dump expects an llvm::OStream& for the

On 9/25/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On 9/24/07, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > > > Weird. I see a potential problem, though. The code is like this: > > > > void dumpToDOUT(SparseBitVector<> *bitmap) { > > dump(*bitmap, DOUT); > > } >

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 all, In the last few days, some change introduced an internal compiler error. On my G4 (PPC), I'm getting this: $ cat testcase.i struct A {}; struct B { struct A c[0]; }; extern const struct B *pB; void bork(void) { const struct A *pA = pB->c; } $ /Users/wendling/llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2.obj/./gcc/xgcc -B/Users/wendling/ llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2.obj/./gcc/ -B/Users/wendling/llvm/llvm-

Yes, this is me. I'll look at this tonight when I have access to a machine. Evan On Jan 27, 2008, at 1:01 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > In the last few days, some change introduced an internal compiler > error. On my G4 (PPC), I'm getting this: > > $ cat testcase.i > struct A {}; > struct B { > struct A c[0]; > };

Have you been sleeping poorly worried about the Clang 3.5 release? Well, this may help! The plan right now is to start testing in July with August as the target release month. There isn’t a schedule yet, of course. But it should be a goodly amount of time for all y’all to prepare for the release process. If you have any questions, please let me know. If you’d like to volunteer to be a tester,

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

After several years as LLVM release manager, I’ve decided to step down as release manager. I recently haven’t been able to focus as much time on LLVM development as I should, and I don’t want the releases to suffer because of that. I’ve enjoyed all of the releases I’ve done. We have a great team of testers. And the community as a whole really helps out so that we can produce a great produce. I my

Thanks Bill! But it does not work. I get the error given below when I try to load LLVMExecutionEngine.o in the opt command. Error opening '../../../build/Release/lib/LLVMExecutionEngine.o': ../../../build/Release/lib/LLVMExecutionEngine.o: only ET_DYN and ET_EXEC can be loaded -load request ignored. Any ideas?? Please help me out here. Thanks, Bhavani --- On Sun, 10/26/08, Bill

Applied. Thanks, Zoltan! -bw On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Zoltan Varga <vargaz at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Attached is the final version of the patch, adding the requested > FIXME. If this is ok, can > somebody check it in ? > > thanks > > Zoltan > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:58 PM,

Hi, The add.with.overflow instrinsics don't seem to work with constant arguments, i.e. changing the call in add-with-overflow.ll to: %t = call {i32, i1} @llvm.sadd.with.overflow.i32(i32 0, i32 0) causes the following exception when running the codegen tests: llc: DAGCombiner.cpp:646: void<unnamed>::DAGCombiner::Run(llvm::CombineLevel): Assertion `N->getValueType(0) ==

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

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,

Do these need to go into the 3.0 branch? -bw On Oct 25, 2011, at 5:59 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > 2011/10/25 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>: >> Hi, >> >> Looks like the memory_barrier intrinsic got removed in 3.0 and replaced with fence intrinsics. >> Could someone who understands this change better than me please update the 3.0 release notes? >>