similar to: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Announcing LLVM 2.9 Testing!

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

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.

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 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,

What was the revision the branch was made from? On Apr 16, 2012, at 11:16 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > We branched for the 3.1 release! (Yay!) > > If there are any fixes which you think should go into the release, please contact the code owners (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners) so that they can approve the patches. No

17.04.2012, 10:16, "Bill Wendling" <wendling at apple.com>: > Hi all, > > We branched for the 3.1 release! (Yay!) > > If there are any fixes which you think should go into the release, please contact the code owners (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners) so that they can approve the patches. No patches will be accepted into the 3.1 release without prior

On Mar 25, 2011, at 6:34 AM, Dongsheng Song wrote: > Tested with gcc 4.5.3 (20100324) on i686-w64-windows: > > http://i18n-zh.googlecode.com/files/gcc-4.5.3-windows_20110324.tar.xz > http://i18n-zh.googlecode.com/files/llvm-clang-2.9-rc2-win32.tar.xz > http://i18n-zh.googlecode.com/files/llvm-clang-2.9-rc2-win32.zip > > [[[ > ******************** > Testing: 0 .. 10..

LLVMers, The LLVM 2.2 release branches have been created! Over the next 2 days, I will be generating the pre-release tar balls. I will send out mail once I am done and then the community pre-release testing will begin. I'll also be sending out detailed instructions and the release schedule. As a reminder, please do not commit patches to the release branch. Please email me with a

Hi developers! This is to announce that LLVM 3.0 will be branching in one week at: 07:00:00 p.m. Friday October 14, 2011 PST 02:00:00 a.m. Saturday October 15, 2011 GMT What this means for you? Please get any last minute changes to your 3.0 features into the tree as soon as possible. Keep a very close eye on the build bots and the nightly tests. Please fix any regressions as quickly as

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

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?

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

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:41, Dongsheng Song <dongsheng.song at gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 09:51, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > >> There are LLVM 2.9 RC1 pre-release tarballs source available. You can find >> them here: >> >> http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.9/ >> >> Please download them, build them, and

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 Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 09:51, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > There are LLVM 2.9 RC1 pre-release tarballs source available. You can find > them here: > > http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.9/ > > Please download them, build them, and compile things to your heart's > content. And most importantly file a bunch of bug reports. :-) > > Share and

Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > Hi Dave, > > Thanks for the results. What platform is this on? And do these failures occur with 2.9? Platform is Debian Linux testing, x86_64. clang is a disaster with 2.9 unfortunately, so I can't test it: /bin/cp Output/sse.expandfft.llvm.o.compile.time Output/sse.expandfft.simple.compile.time

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

On Nov 15, 2011, at 9:41 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > >> Hi Dave, >> >> Thanks for the results. What platform is this on? And do these failures occur with 2.9? > > Platform is Debian Linux testing, x86_64. > > clang is a disaster with 2.9 unfortunately, so I can't test it: > > /bin/cp

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: