similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: LLVM Release Documentation Changes

On 25 February 2011 22:46, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Duncan brought up the question of how to release clang. It would be nice to package clang by itself without all of the LLVM tools. Basically, making it a standalone package. I have no problem with this (in fact, I think it's a great idea), but it does mean changing Makefiles and stuff. Any help with this would

On 2011-03-25 08:07, Bill Wendling wrote: > 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. Please download the sources, compile them, and then compile as much

On Mar 15, 2011, at 7:25 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi wrote: > Good morning. > Hi Nakamura, > LLVM and clang can be built successfully on Fedora 12 PS3. > Hooray! :-) > On RC1, only one test failed. > test/CodeGen/X86/fold-pcmpeqd-0.ll > Eric commented that this should be fixed on the release branch right now. > On release_29 branch, all llvm tests can pass. Woo! :-) >

Good morning. LLVM and clang can be built successfully on Fedora 12 PS3. On RC1, only one test failed. test/CodeGen/X86/fold-pcmpeqd-0.ll On release_29 branch, all llvm tests can pass. (I don't mention clang tests :p ) ...Takumi Fedora release 12 (Constantine) Linux speedking.localdomain 2.6.32.23-170.fc12.ppc64 #1 SMP Mon Sep 27 17:09:35 UTC 2010 ppc64 ppc64 ppc64 GNU/Linux llvm

Am 02.10.2009 um 21:07 schrieb Ronald Pijnacker: > I had a close look at the link line, and -lpsapi is specified before > -lLLVMSystem (which is giving the error). > When I put -lpsapi after -lLLVMSystem, it links ok. I commited a fix for this problem and a modified version of Jay's patch here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090928/088265.html I

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. Please download the sources, compile them, and then compile as much as you can with both clang and llvm-gcc.

Hi Bill, > The release tags are now available for check-out. The branch and tag structure > in SVN is detailed on this webpage: > > http://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html can you please explain explicitly where to get hold of the branch and tags. The branch seems to live at http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_29 but there seems to be nothing relevant under

Does someone have a solution for this problem ? I am using gcc version 4.4.5 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5)  and I have tried several versions of LLVM including llvm 2.9 final. I am getting same error again and again. I have successfully build the llvm on another machine with gcc version of 4.3. Thanks in advance. make[1]: Entering directory

Hi, if you change unlink to ::unlink on that line, does it help? Ciao, Duncan. On 10/26/11 19:27, janarbek wrote: > Does someone have a solution for this problem ? > I am using gcc version 4.4.5 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5) and I have tried > several versions of LLVM including llvm 2.9 final. I am getting same error again > and again. > > I have successfully build the llvm

Hi Duncan, unlink is a C function, right ? why need a :: ?  Or is there a class ?   --- On Wed, 10/26/11, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: From: Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM build is failed giving Path.inc:714: error: ‘unlink’ was not declared in this scope To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2011, 11:10 AM Hi, if you

Hi all, In LLVM documentation about source level debugging (http://www.llvm.org/releases/2.9/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html) Subprogram descriptor is defined as: !2 = metadata !{ i32, ;; Tag = 46 + LLVMDebugVersion <http://www.llvm.org/releases/2.9/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html#LLVMDebugVersion> ;; (DW_TAG_subprogram) i32, ;; Unused field. metadata, ;;

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

On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > And in Fedora's Rawhide development tree (not in our upcoming F-15 > release, since third-party packages won't be ready in time for our May > release): > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=235848 > > The RPMs should install fine on F-15, and you can always rebuild with > rpmbuild.

On Dec 15, 2011, at 2:32 AM, Seb wrote: > Hi all, > > In LLVM documentation about source level debugging (http://www.llvm.org/releases/2.9/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html) > > > Subprogram descriptor is defined as: > > !2 = metadata !{ > i32, ;; Tag = 46 + LLVMDebugVersion > ;; (DW_TAG_subprogram) > > i32, ;; Unused field. >

On 03/25/2011 09:13 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:44 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > >> And in Fedora's Rawhide development tree (not in our upcoming F-15 >> release, since third-party packages won't be ready in time for our May >> release): >> >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=235848 >> >> The

Hi Devang, Not only "vtable ptr" is a problem, for this field it seems that CLANG emits a NULL metadata node which is translated into 'i32 0'. The other problem is for 'isArtificial' field with is described as being of type i1 and CLANG emits i32. Looking at sources, it seems that it should be a i32 flag field. Hope this helps, Best Regards Seb 2011/12/15 Devang

Is there a tag available for LLVM 2.9? If not what's a good revision # to consider 2.9? r129053? Thanks! Joe Abbey Software Architect Arxan Technologies, Inc. www.arxan.com <http://www.arxan.com/> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Aug 15, 2011, at 6:04 PM, Joe Abbey wrote: > Is there a tag available for LLVM 2.9? > Yes. tags/2.9 in svn. -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110815/e22e08ae/attachment.html>

> In your svn section of llvm/.git/config, you can specify how to map > the svn branches to different name spaces, something like this: > > [svn-remote "svn"] >        [...] >        branches = branches/*:refs/remotes/origin/* >        fetch = branches:refs/remotes/origin > > I would also change "branches = branches/*:refs/remotes/origin/*" > into

On 1/30/15 10:24 AM, Qiuping Yi wrote: > I am just not upgrade my LLVM. So I must use some higer LLVM version, > right? Yes. For working with poolalloc, I would recommend using LLVM 3.2 as we know poolalloc compiles with LLVM 3.2. If there's a release_29 branch for poolalloc, you could use that, but you won't get any bug fixes that we added between poolalloc 2.9 and poolalloc