similar to: [LLVMdev] I want to contribute a BuildBot for Open Solaris

Hello LLVM devs, I would like to contribute an x86 64-bit OpenSolaris 2009.06 buildbot to the project, at least for LLVM but Clang would be great too if that's possible. If someone would provide me with a password and the necessary configuration, I'll get that taken care of. Best, Erich

<span style="font-family: 'Courier New'; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: medium; ">Hello LLVM devs,<br /> <br /> I would like to contribute an x86 64-bit OpenSolaris 2009.06 buildbot to the project, at least for LLVM but Clang would be great too if that's possible. If someone would provide me with a password and

Please create a similar branch for Klee; I've been working on porting that to 2.7 as well.<br /> <br /> Best, Erich Ocean<br /> <br /> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Criswell (criswell@uiuc.edu) wrote:<br /> > <br /> > Dear SAFECoders and LLVMers,<br /> > <br /> > There is some new work on moving DSA to the new LLVM 2.7 API.

To the list:<br /> <br /> Tons of LLVM research is being done that is damn near worthless to anyone but the person who did it because the team doesn't publish supporting code or even describe at a high level description of the algorithms they're using. And the excuse is always, ALWAYS the same: "we need to clean up the code before we release it."<br /> <br

As I mentioned on another thread, we also use the term "slave" for the BuildBot builders. In the past, I was told this was due to being stuck on an old version of BuildBot. Fortunately, there is already work in progress to update BuildBot to a newer version. Since that's also going affect all the build machines, perhaps changing the name of the main branch should happen

To be clear: I’m concerned about the amount of our infrastructure (as well as downstream infrastructure, this would be actually pretty painful for both of my downstreams) that the community would have break/need fixing as a part of that. So I want this to happen ONCE. I think it is well motivated now, but switching from ‘default’ to ‘main’ when that becomes the ‘standard’ one seems way less

That's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the build bot owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes the time rather than the change :) On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Keane, Erich via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My understanding is the biggest concern about the name change is the > ‘cost’ associated with needing to

I mean, we could change it twice? There are about a hundred scripts out there for doing it. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:40 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > Do we have any ability to reach out to github (at least?) to see what they > are going to do? I’d very much like to avoid being the odd-project-out > here. > > > > > > > >

I disagree with your timing concerns. Changing is still straightforward and I'd like to see this done within 1-2 weeks. Thanks. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:22 PM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> wrote: > +1 to waiting until git and/or github decide on a new name for the default > branch. I think there is a compelling reason to change the name of the > default

I’d like us to move forward with something along the lines Erich proposed back in May, ideally early enough in the LLVM 8 release process that people testing the release will be able to provide feedback. Are there any remaining concerns? > On May 23, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all- > I just wanted to bump this again,

Sorry for the inline-comment format being weird, I haven't figured out yet how to do '>' stuff in outlook yet :/ Hopefully this is clear enough. -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:55 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re:

I've heard just about zero opposition to this, so I've put a code review together here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073 With the intent of either implementing this policy change, or encouraging further discussion/bikeshed. Thanks all! -Erich -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Davis [mailto:brooks at freebsd.org] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:34 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane

> On Jan 10, 2019, at 4:30 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm a bit puzzled as of why would a fix period of time be the best option to automatically cut support for older compilers? > > Historically I believe we've been looking at a combination of: > > 1) What new feature we gain by dropping support for a given version of the compiler >

Stephen, does that help you out? From: Mike Edwards <mike at sqlby.me> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:55 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: Stephen Hines <srhines at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang developer list <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Renaming

Alright, I guess it isn’t just my pain then, it makes it feel better ☺ I think that proposed feature would be really nice, since it would encourage people to write tests that have a //CHECK: some-thing-after-header first! From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:15 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject:

Hi all, I want to plot the grouped means of some variables. The dependent variables and the grouping factor are stored in different columns. I want to draw a simple line-plot of means, in which the x-axis represents the variables and y-axis represents the means. The means of the groups should be connected by lines. So far, the only function that I could find comes closest to what I'm

There's really no guarantee that things will shake out the same in near term between the projects. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:31 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > I’m a bit mixed on this. While yes, we should change this as soon as is > practical, it would be a shame to pick something sufficiently different > from the rest of the world, as that would

Based on my reading of the release pages (https://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html and http://releases.llvm.org/) 6/5 would make GCC 4.7 and Clang 3.1 required, and GCC 4.8 and Clang 3.3 the first to not warn. 6/5 is surprisingly close to making the policy conform to exactly our current time-lag, where we are GCC4.8 (instead of 4.7) and Clang 3.1 (also 3.1). -Erich From: Andrew Kelley

some of you might be interested. i just uploaded the first release of my r-excel interface package to CRAN. it is in contributed extensions nonstandard extensions erich neuwirth -- Erich Neuwirth, Computer Supported Didactics Working Group Visit our SunSITE at http://sunsite.univie.ac.at Phone: +43-1-4277-38624 Fax: +43-1-4277-9386

some of you might be interested. i just uploaded the first release of my r-excel interface package to CRAN. it is in contributed extensions nonstandard extensions erich neuwirth -- Erich Neuwirth, Computer Supported Didactics Working Group Visit our SunSITE at http://sunsite.univie.ac.at Phone: +43-1-4277-38624 Fax: +43-1-4277-9386