similar to: [LLVMdev] Announcement: 2.8 Branching Time

The LLVM 2.8 branches have been created! We will be conducting several rounds of testing of this branch during September. See http://llvm.org/ for a tentative schedule. What this means for you As I mentioned in a previous e-mail, the branch is still open for code submissions. However there are a few rules that we need to adhere to: No new features are allowed, no matter how trivial they may be.

This is a reminder that the branch date for the LLVM 2.8 release is next Friday (September 3rd). Please try to finish up any major changes you have so that they get a sufficient amount of "bake time" before the branch. As Friday approaches, please keep the top-of-tree as stable as possible. September 3rd is not the final date for code submissions. We will allow submissions to fix bugs

This is just a reminder to say that we will be branching for the LLVM 3.0 release Friday! 07:00:00 p.m. Friday October 14, 2011 PDT 02:00:00 a.m. Saturday October 15, 2011 GMT Now is the time to look at the buildbots and see what fixes they need: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/console As of this writing, we have: • several test failures on llvm-gcc self-host:

On Aug 4, 2010, at 6:01 AM, Török Edwin wrote: > On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:57:05 -0700 > Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > >> Good news, everybody! >> >> It's that time of year again. We are going to release LLVM 2.8! I'm >> taking over for Tanya to give her a much needed break. I can only >> hope to perform as well as she has. This

Assign the bug to me and I'll fix it in TOT next week! Thanks for narrowing it down! On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, Nicolas Capens <nicolas.capens at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think I figured it out: > 112804 causes 64-bit UNPCKLBW to no longer be selected for certain cases. > 112805 is benign. > 112806 causes 64-bit UNPCKHBW to no longer be selected for

On Sep 21, 2010, at 5:30 PMPDT, Bill Wendling wrote: > LLVM isn't going to stop generating MMX instructions all together. We can't do that. :-) If the user specifically wants MMX (by, say, using the builtins), we have to support that still. The plan to cease generating MMX for generic vectors is a work-in-progress right now. It's not in 2.8. > > -bw Right, early on there

This is a reminder that we will be branching for LLVM 2.9 in one week! 07:00:00 p.m. Sunday March 6, 2011 PST / 03:00:00 a.m. Monday March 7, 2011 GMT What this means for you: Please keep a watch on all of your patches going into mainline. And pay close attention to the buildbots and fix any issues quickly. Also, please try to finish up any last minute feature work. While it won't be the

On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Albert Graef wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> Release testing of Release Candidate 1 is finished. I'll be tagging >> Release Candidate 2 tonight. If there are any fixes you want in, please >> get them approved as soon as possible. > > Are there any tarballs for the release candidates available? Tanya used > to make these available

LLVM isn't going to stop generating MMX instructions all together. We can't do that. :-) If the user specifically wants MMX (by, say, using the builtins), we have to support that still. The plan to cease generating MMX for generic vectors is a work-in-progress right now. It's not in 2.8. -bw On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote: > This thread confuses me. I thought

On Sep 21, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > Sorry for the late reply. I got sidetracked by other fun projects. ;-) > > I found that the performance regression is caused by revisions 112804, > 112805 and 112806. Those changes were made 2 days prior to the 2.8 > branching, so it may have not been the intention to include them there? > Either way they

Hi Bill, Will the 2.9 branch be reflected in the git mirrors? Thanks, Chad On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > This is a reminder that we will be branching for LLVM 2.9 in one week! > 07:00:00 p.m. Sunday March 6, 2011 PST / 03:00:00 a.m. Monday March 7, 2011 > GMT > What this means for you: > Please keep a watch on all of your

Good news, everybody! It's that time of year again. We are going to release LLVM 2.8! I'm taking over for Tanya to give her a much needed break. I can only hope to perform as well as she has. This is my first time as release manager, so bear with me if things don't go smoothly. This message is mostly to give you an idea of the schedule we're planning on. It's an aggressive

Important Announcement Release testing of Release Candidate 1 is finished. I'll be tagging Release Candidate 2 tonight. If there are any fixes you want in, please get them approved as soon as possible. After this tag, the only patches that will be accepted will be those that fix regressions from 2.7 -bw -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > This is just a reminder to say that we will be branching for the LLVM 3.0 release Friday! > > 07:00:00 p.m. Friday October 14, 2011 PDT > 02:00:00 a.m. Saturday October 15, 2011 GMT Hi Bill, I have some pending patches for 3.0 only. Will you be sending out an announcement when the split is finished and such patches can be

Just a reminder, LLVM 3.4 will be branching tomorrow: Monday, November 18, 2013 at 7:00:00 PM PST / Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 3:00:00 AM UTC All new features should be near finished. :-) Now, this doesn’t mean that that’s the last time code can be checked into the branch. However, it is the last time code can be checked in without approval by the code owner. Please please please keep on

On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > LLVM seems to be generating way too complex of branching based on the > short-circuit optimization. The code in question is as follows: > > define void @ test_fc_while_and(float %x, float %y, float addrspace(11)* > %result) nounwind { > > entry: > > %tobool3 = fcmp une float

On Oct 14, 2011, at 12:54 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > >> I have some pending patches for 3.0 only. > > Of course I meant post-3.0 only. > Yes, I'll send out a message when it's okay to submit post-3.0 patches. -bw

We have officially branched for the LLVM 3.4 release!! This means that we are now in the middle of a feature freeze. Here’s what will happen over the next several weeks: * Nov 19 - Nov 24: This is Phase I testing. During this time, you are still able to add code to the release branch. However, you will need to have the approval of the code owner before committing it. We are mostly looking for

This thread confuses me. I thought Chris said that LLVM 2.8 will not lower generic vectors to MMX because it breaks x87 code, and I didn't see an answer to your question about a switch to tell the code generator otherwise. However, you're complaining that MMX performance is subpar, even though LLVM 2.8 isn't supposed to generate MMX instructions. Can someone clarify the situation

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:50:24 -0700 Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 15, 2010, at 12:46 AM, Albert Graef wrote: > > > Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Release testing of Release Candidate 1 is finished. I'll be tagging > >> Release Candidate 2 tonight. If there are any fixes you want in, > >> please get them approved as soon as