similar to: [LLVMdev] 3.1 Has Branched

how to get this branch? still svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk llvm? Thank you. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 2:16 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

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

Hi I am trying to use latest version of llvm and clang, and I have gotten them by svn. ./configure --enable-shared has run successfully, but make REQUIRES_RTTI=1 returns error: make[2]: Entering directory `/home/ryjiao/Downloads/llvm-dev/llvm/tools/llvm-config' make[2]: Nothing to be done for `all'. make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/ryjiao/Downloads/llvm-dev/llvm/tools/llvm-config'

Hi Jiao, Well, I didn't try to compile with RTTI, but I had some time ago a very similar problem while linking the opt. In my case, I was not being able to create the shared library when enable-shared were passed through the configure script. I just had to realize that my default compiler was not being able to generate the binaries, probably because of its version (it was the stable llvm-gcc

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

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

Hi Anton, git-svn got confused at the branch point for the release_31: I see that the current release_31 branch has been created on r155051 as a copy of r155050 from trunk, and r155050 is actually removing an older release_31 branch: Revision 155050 Author: void Date: Wed Apr 18 16:38:33 2012 CDT (11 days, 20 hours ago) Log Message: Removing old release_31 branch for rebranching. This

We have branched for the 3.2 release! Some "sticky reminders": You can get all of the 3.2 code from the appropriate .../branches/release_32/ You can track state of the 3.2 release through so called "Umbrella bug" : http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13893 Hopefully it will not "rain bugs" on us and we will not need it that much! After branching all patches

> 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

Hi Anton, On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > Sebastian, > >> I just saw that the git branch remotes/origin/release_31 has been created >> for llvm.  Unfortunately it is missing the right context: right now I can only >> see 11 patches in that branch with the last patch having no parent. >> >> Could

FYI, I have been maintaining my own release_31 manually on github.com/chapuni. 2012/5/1 Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org>: > Hi Anton, > > git-svn got confused at the branch point for the release_31: I see > that the current release_31 branch has been created on r155051 as a > copy of r155050 from trunk, and r155050 is actually removing an older > release_31 branch:

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, 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

On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: >> >> lib/Bitcode/*

Hi; This is on Linux/x86-64, I get this at stage1: make[2]: Entering directory `/home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/stage1/projects/compiler_rt' Makefile:6: make/config.mk: No such file or directory Makefile:7: make/util.mk: No such file or directory Makefile:16: *** Refusing to build with empty ProjObjRoot variable. Stop. make[2]: Leaving directory

Hello, Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: lib/Bitcode/* include/Bitcode/* This means that I'll be committed to documenting (yay) the implementation and responsible for reviewing patches and commits, as well as overall code quality and

On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: > > lib/Bitcode/* > include/Bitcode/* > > This means that I'll be committed to documenting

Hi All, I was checking for GIT or SVN versions corresponding to llvm3.1 release by checking svn and git logs, but failed to find the exact match. I checked with r156747, which is the last version it shows in      http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_31/ but when I 'diff' this with the 'downloaded llvm3.1 release'(http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#3.1), then I

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:02:58AM +0200, Albert Graef wrote: > On 05/08/2012 08:05 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > The 3.1 release is scheduled for next Monday. Please check the ReleaseNotes.html file to make sure that it's up-to-date. > > Are there any tarballs for the current release candidate available > somewhere, so that I can test my stuff against the new release?

Hi, In llvm 3.0 llvm::ConstantArray had a ::getAsCString() method that returned the buffer as a std::string. Now it seems that 3.1 this method dissapeared. I found that llvm::ConstantDataArray has a method called getAsString(), but it returns a Constant*. What is the safe way to retrieve the pointer of the Constant array as a C string?