similar to: [LLVMdev] Announcing LLVM 2.8 Pre-Release 2 Testing

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

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

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:

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

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 for previous releases, but I haven't been able to find any for testing 2.8.

Greetings! This is the revised LLVM 2.8 release schedule: 9/3 - Branch 9/6 - Pre-release1 out (binaries and tar balls), testing begins 9/12 - Pre-release1 testing ends 9/20 - Pre-release2 testing begins 9/26 - Pre-release2 testing ends 9/28 - Release! There will be more information as the branch date approaches. Please have all major features finished as soon as possible. It's important to

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

On Mar 8, 2011, at 10:34 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On 03/08/11 04:01, Bill Wendling wrote: >> It's that time again! (Well, it was that time yesterday, but I made a mistake.) The LLVM 2.9 release is now underway! > >> Developers: >> >> Top-of-tree is now open for submissions. The 2.9 release branch and tags are available for you to check out and test.

It's that time again! (Well, it was that time yesterday, but I made a mistake.) The LLVM 2.9 release is now underway! 2.9 Will Be The Last llvm-gcc Release! That's right! It's the end of an era. The llvm-gcc front-end has served us very well over the years, but with the advent of Clang and DragonEgg it is starting to suffer from bit rot. Starting with the 3.0 release, Clang will be

Not yet. That is, I don't think any have been filed at all for 3.0. I don't know whether to be happy or worried. :-) Any that are regressions should be marked with the 'regression' keyword and be a release blocker. -bw On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Do we have a list of which PRs have been filed that are considered release blockers?

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

Hi Bill, Do we have a list of which PRs have been filed that are considered release blockers? -Jim On Oct 17, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi all, > > Testing for LLVM 3.0 release candidate 1 is now under way! We will soon have binaries available for you to download and try. Those who would like to compile things and try them out for themselves can grab the source

Hi all, Testing for LLVM 3.0 release candidate 1 is now under way! We will soon have binaries available for you to download and try. Those who would like to compile things and try them out for themselves can grab the source tarballs here: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.0/ A Word About Patches I neglected to send out instructions on how to get patches into the LLVM 3.0 branch. All patches must

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 15:07, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Well! we had a rather fruitful phase 1 testing round. Several issues were > addressed. After a bit of a delay, we are ready for phase 2 testing. > > This phase is to make sure that no patches submitted to fix problems and > complete features in phase 1 caused further difficulties.

Good morning, Bill. On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 5:12 AM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >> Failing Tests (1): >>     LLVM :: CodeGen/X86/h-registers-1.ll > Could you send the output for this command? I haven't seen this failure crop up before... I missed it (and it was not in RC1). IIRC, Jakob's commit would affect it on Windows. It has been fixed on ToT,

Hi David, Yes. It was the main reason why I decided to do an RC3. :-) -bw On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:41 AM, David Terei wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Is the fix for Bug 9561 included? (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9561) > > Cheers, > David. > > On 26 March 2011 18:38, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The good news:

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:07:25PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi David, > > Yes. It was the main reason why I decided to do an RC3. :-) > > -bw Bill, Any chance we can squeeze http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9571#c13 into llvm-gcc-4.2-2.9 for the final llvm-gcc release? Jack > > On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:41 AM, David Terei wrote: > > > Hi

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 is my first time as release > manager, so bear with me if things don't go

Hi Bill, Is the fix for Bug 9561 included? (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9561) Cheers, David. On 26 March 2011 18:38, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The good news: RC2 testing was successful in that it uncovered a bad regression from 2.8 (which existed in top-of-tree). It also showed that there was an unincorporated fix that needed to go into

Is there are chance to get http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5081 fixed in 2.6? The affected application did compile with with LLVM 2.5. I haven't yet checked whether TOT fixed this already, however, but will do this if necessary. Thanks, Torvald On Saturday 17 October 2009 20:51:05 Tanya Lattner wrote: > LLVMers, > > 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community.