similar to: [LLVMdev] Need help fixing 2.7 release blockers

On Tuesday 30 March 2010 16:09:03 Tanya Lattner wrote: > Please take a look at all release blockers: > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6586 5893 is not release-critical according to Doug. 6640 appears to be a test system problem with a patch available (one of the ones you're working on?) Which bugs do you have patches for? I don't want to start looking at something if

On Tuesday 30 March 2010 17:45:16 David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 30 March 2010 16:09:03 Tanya Lattner wrote: > > Please take a look at all release blockers: > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6586 > > 5893 is not release-critical according to Doug. > > 6640 appears to be a test system problem with a patch available (one of the > ones you're working on?)

On Mar 30, 2010, at 4:04 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 30 March 2010 17:45:16 David Greene wrote: >> On Tuesday 30 March 2010 16:09:03 Tanya Lattner wrote: >>> Please take a look at all release blockers: >>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6586 >> >> 5893 is not release-critical according to Doug. >> >> 6640 appears to be a test

On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:45 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 30 March 2010 16:09:03 Tanya Lattner wrote: > >> Please take a look at all release blockers: >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6586 > > 5893 is not release-critical according to Doug. > Will take care of this. > 6640 appears to be a test system problem with a patch available (one of the >

On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:09:03 -0700, Tanya Lattner <xzss at ____.com> wrote: > All, > > There has been a huge lack of response to the release. We need people to > help fix regressions and to participate in testing the release. Without > this support, I see no reason that the release team should spend their time > qualifying a release. > > We need to get all

The 2.7 pre-release2 is available for testing: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.7/pre-release2/ Please complete all testing by April 23rd EOD. We are shortening this testing period a bit to get the release out soon since its been delayed so far. The release team has done our qualifications and we think its of high quality and ready to go. As this is the last pre-release, we only accept fixes for

The 2. 7 release branch is created. If you want to check it out, you can issue the following commands: svn co https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_27 svn co https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm-gcc-4.2/branches/release_27 svn co https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/test-suite/branches/release_27 svn co https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/cfe/branches/release_27 The pre-release

I've been getting this on svn update all day: svn: REPORT request failed on '/svn/llvm-project/!svn/vcc/default' svn: REPORT of '/svn/llvm-project/!svn/vcc/default': 403 Forbidden (http://llvm.org) Is this related to the server problems that have been going on for a while? -Dave

On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > I've been getting this on svn update all day: > > svn: REPORT request failed on '/svn/llvm-project/!svn/vcc/default' > svn: REPORT of '/svn/llvm-project/!svn/vcc/default': 403 Forbidden > (http://llvm.org) > > Is this related to the server problems that have been going on for a > while? > svn is

On 03/30/2010 09:21 PM, Török Edwin wrote: > On 03/30/2010 09:15 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: >> Thanks for testing the release! >> >>> Tests were run on x86-64, Debian unstable, Linux 2.6.33, gcc 4.4.3, >>> 64-bit. I built srcdir == objdir, I have built llvm and clang myself, >>> and used the binaries for llvm-gcc. >>> >>> 1. llvm-gcc 2.7 vs

On 03/30/2010 09:15 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > > Thanks for testing the release! > >> Tests were run on x86-64, Debian unstable, Linux 2.6.33, gcc 4.4.3, >> 64-bit. I built srcdir == objdir, I have built llvm and clang myself, >> and used the binaries for llvm-gcc. >> >> 1. llvm-gcc 2.7 vs 2.6 >> compared to my results from Aug 31 2009, ignoring CBE

Hi Tanya, The new type-legalization mode (-promote-elements) which enables vector-select in LLVM (and a nice perf boost for several workloads), is currently disabled because of a _single_ bug in the ARM codegen which makes a few tests fail. If ARM is not a supported target, can I mark these tests as 'XFAIL' and enable vector-select support in LLVM ? Thanks, Nadav -----Original

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > It seems that we cannot execute svn commands against llvm-project any more: > $ svn diff -r 208457:208458 'http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project' > svn: access to '/svn/llvm-project/!svn/vcc/default' forbidden > > Tanja, any idea what changed? > (Tanya, sorry for messing up the name,

No. Note the qualifying phrase "for releases" on Tanya's statement. If, during release testing, a regression is found on ARM compared to 2.9 results, it is not required by process to be considered a release blocker. That does not mean features can or should be enabled which knowingly break ARM. That's an entirely different situation. -Jim On Oct 8, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Rotem,

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > On 12 May 2014 08:35, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> It seems that we cannot execute svn commands against llvm-project any > >> more: > >> $ svn

On Monday 10 August 2009 17:42, Tanya Lattner wrote: > On Aug 10, 2009, at 2:59 PM, David Greene wrote: > > I've been getting this on svn update all day: > > > > svn: REPORT request failed on '/svn/llvm-project/!svn/vcc/default' > > svn: REPORT of '/svn/llvm-project/!svn/vcc/default': 403 Forbidden > > (http://llvm.org) > > > > Is

LLVMers, The 2.4 release is blocked by PR2888. If anyone can help debug this problem, it would help us get the release out sooner. Thanks! -Tanya

I am very interested in seeing a qualification plan for ARM given that it is a widely used target with several combinations of options/modes to be tested. I & my team use ARM hardware for running tests and we run all LLVM test suite tests as part of qualification process. I had started a similar conversation in llvm-commits, but this is probably the right forum. It will save everyone a lot of

On 03/07/2011 08:30 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hi David > >> I think the trouble with branches is the lockdown of the root repository >> directory. > Surely not (at the server) > >> git svn init --stdlayout https://<user>@llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm \ >>

I am very interested in seeing a qualification plan for ARM given that it is a widely used target with several combinations of options/modes to be tested. I & my team use ARM hardware for running tests and we run all test LLVM test suite tests as part of qualification process. I had started a similar conversation in llvm-commits, but this is probably the right forum. It will save everyone a