similar to: [LLVMdev] [Frustration] API breakage

On 13 July 2011 15:47, fly language <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't really buy the manpower argument. Updating the release doc when > breaking the frigging API is the Right Thing To Do and shouldn't take that > long, when done when the change is fresh in memory. I regularly make small API-breaking changes in the name of cleaning things up. Sorry! I'd be

On Jul 13, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Jay Foad wrote: > On 13 July 2011 15:47, fly language <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote: >> I don't really buy the manpower argument. Updating the release doc when >> breaking the frigging API is the Right Thing To Do and shouldn't take that >> long, when done when the change is fresh in memory. > > I regularly make small

I've updated the release notes for all API changes I've made since 2.9 was branched: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110711/123990.html > Preferably all in the same place, in order, with (approx.) revision > numbers where it happened. It'd make our jobs much easier to merge our > local base with trunk. I haven't gone into quite that much

On 07/14/2011 11:23 AM, Jay Foad wrote: > I've updated the release notes for all API changes I've made since 2.9 > was branched: > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20110711/123990.html Thanks. But what about the API changes related to the new type system (OpaqueType gone, etc.)? Is that documented somewhere? Shouldn't it be in the release

On 07/13/2011 05:09 PM, Jay Foad wrote: > I regularly make small API-breaking changes in the name of cleaning > things up. Sorry! I'd be happy to update the release notes if folks > reckon this is the right thing to do. Would it just mean adding a<ul> > to the (currently empty) list in docs/ReleaseNotes.html#api_changes ? That's definitely needed. Not every LLVM user

> Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only > outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question. > Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed > reservation about losing them. There are very decent solutions to the monotonic revnum issue (git describe, hooks/tagging), so that shouldn't hold back the transition.

FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> writes: >> Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only >> outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question. >> Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed >> reservation about losing them. > > There are very decent solutions to the monotonic revnum issue

Have we made any progress on a potential git conversion? AFAIK the only outstanding technical issue is the monotonic revision number question. Personally, I have no nead for them but others have expressed reservation about losing them. Can we have a discussion about that to identify the core tasks currently needing monotnic revision numbers and how they might be accomplished under git?

Hi All, Please review the 2.5 release notes here: http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Let me know if you have any additions, improvements, or see any oversights. If you have commit access, please just directly change the document. The release is planned to go out in about 24 hours from now! Thanks! -Chris

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM, FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> wrote: > #define ASSERT_STRM(cond, args) \ >> if (!(cond)) AssertionFailureStream(__FILE_**_, __LINE__) << args >> >> Note that there's no trailing semicolon, as this is supplied at the >> point where the macro is invoked. >> >> What do you think? >> >

> On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:15 PM, FlyLanguage wrote: > >>> Is that really true? I've heard of a lot of LLVM developers using git >>> but it all seems very opaque right now. That's why I hope to get people >>> talking so we can find out where everyone is and go from there. >> >> Yet, there's surprisingly little complaint about Subversion around

Forgot to CC the list, sorry. ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To: FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com> > Cc: > Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 10:40 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RTTI gone in 3.0? > > Hi FlyLanguage, > > I thought LLVM disabled RTTI a long time ago.  It was just too slow. > > --Sam >

Den 26.07.2011 20:12, skrev Talin: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM, FlyLanguage <flylanguage at gmail.com > <mailto:flylanguage at gmail.com>> wrote: > > #define ASSERT_STRM(cond, args) \ > if (!(cond)) AssertionFailureStream(__FILE____, __LINE__) > << args > > Note that there's no trailing semicolon, as this

On Sep 1, 2011, at 3:15 PM, FlyLanguage wrote: >> Is that really true? I've heard of a lot of LLVM developers using git >> but it all seems very opaque right now. That's why I hope to get people >> talking so we can find out where everyone is and go from there. > > Yet, there's surprisingly little complaint about Subversion around here, > which is kinda

> Or, the front-end of my programming language has to analize the source > code, and convert it to LLVM-IR? Yes

On 14 July 2011 02:26, Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> wrote: > That's definitely needed. Not every LLVM user tracks development on > trunk very closely and reads every commit message. A quick note about > the nature of API-breaking changes and a hint on how to migrate existing > sources would be really appreciated. I second that. Preferably all in the same place, in

> That's what we need to have a discussion about. If those things will > work for people, great. If not, we have some stuff to figure out. Agreed. Hopefully core peeps will chime in. >> I suppose it's merely a manpower thing now > > I'm not assuming that given the volume of e-mail around this. Sending mail is cheap. Switching to git completely isn't.

On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Jay Foad wrote: >> To test clang: >> 1) Compile llvm and clang from source. > > LLVM fails to build for me on Cygwin. I get: > Does TOT build? If not, please file a bug. Unfortunately Cygwin is not in our release criteria. I'd like to have a buildbot running (if there is not one already) and then get someone to qualify it for the

> To test clang: > 1) Compile llvm and clang from source. LLVM fails to build for me on Cygwin. I get: make[1]: Entering directory `/home/foad/llvm/objdir-2.6/runtime' make[2]: Entering directory `/home/foad/llvm/objdir-2.6/runtime/libprofile' llvm[2]: Compiling BasicBlockTracing.c for Release build (PIC) llvm[2]: Compiling BlockProfiling.c for Release build (PIC) llvm[2]:

On Oct 20, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Aaron Gray wrote: > 2009/10/20 Tanya Lattner <lattner at apple.com>: >> >> On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Jay Foad wrote: >> >>>> To test clang: >>>> 1) Compile llvm and clang from source. >>> >>> LLVM fails to build for me on Cygwin. I get: >>> >> >> Does TOT build? If not,