similar to: [LLVMdev] 3.1 Release Notes

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 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

Chris Lattner wrote: > Please review the 2.5 release notes here: http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Here are two typos I noticed: s/improvmenets/improvements/ s/GFortan/GFortran/ -- Dr. Albert Gr"af Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany Email: Dr.Graef at t-online.de, ag at muwiinfa.geschichte.uni-mainz.de WWW: http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag

Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: > On 06/21/2012 04:22 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> About the "many features" that cmake lacks, can you provide a list, >> please? > > Generally it works fairly well, but here are some differences to the > autoconf-based build I noticed: > > - No 'make uninstall'. That is a real deal breaker if you

I am somewhat surprised people are actually using TCO. I had to fixed a number of subtle bugs to get it working and even now I am not too happy with it. My focus was on finding non-ABI changing automatic tail call cases (aka gcc's sibcall). It's now done so I'll leave -tailcallopt alone for now. I'll run -tailcallopt as x86 llcbeta to see if JIT is indeed broken. Evan On Feb 5,

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? Also, who's editing the release notes, i.e., where should external projects send their

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:56:44PM +0200, Albert Graef wrote: > On 05/08/2012 11:05 AM, 陳韋任 wrote: > > http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.1/rc1/ > > http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.1/rc2/ > > Thanks. So there's no set of source tarballs for rc2? In that case my > best bet is probably to check out the release_31 branch from svn (and > likewise for clang), is that

On 05/24/2012 03:37 AM, Michael Spencer wrote: > LLVM already supports Windows quite well. The issue is clang and the > MS C++ ABI. If you are writing your own language that does not need to > interact with the C++ ABI then everything will be fine. I can confirm this. Even if you do need to interface to C/C++, clang works fine for that as long as you stick to the mingw libraries instead

Duncan Sands wrote: > Do ordinary users need to have cmake if they want to build llvm? > If so, that's bad because they'll have to install it (unlike the > current setup, where only very standard tools are needed). That's not the only problem with cmake. The autotools may be a big and ugly beast, but that's because they're trying to solve a big and ugly problem for

On Aug 25, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Albert Graef wrote: > Trunk (r80020): > raw_fd_ostream(const char *Filename, std::string &ErrorInfo, > unsigned Flags = 0); > > It would be helpful to emulate the LLVM 2.5 variant of the constructor > on both 2.6 and trunk, so that frontend developers don't have to code > against three different versions of the

I just upgraded HLVM from LLVM 2.7 to 2.8 and started seeing stack overflows so I think TCO isn't working. Have there been any obvious changes that would cause this? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com

Eli Friedman wrote: > This isn't first-hand, but from what I remember hearing on IRC, > putting llvm into shared libraries caused a ridiculous explosion in > dynamic linking (and therefore startup) times. So there is no option > to make shared libraries, at least at the moment. Well, by tweaking configure and make options, I've managed to build LLVM 2.2 shared libraries on

Dear All, The LLVM 2.6 Release Branch doesn't compile for me on Mac OS X. The following patch seems to fix it (it adds a missing include file to get WeakVH defined). Has anyone else seen this breakage, or is it possible that I've got the wrong branch checked out? -- John T. Index: lib/Transforms/Scalar/DeadStoreElimination.cpp

On 10/17/2011 10:09 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > llvm-gcc is dead, deprecated in favour of clang and dragonegg. It won't be part > of the upcoming 3.0 release. This is why no-one is interested in working on it. The tentative release notes still say otherwise: "LLVM 3.0 will be the last release of llvm-gcc." (http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html) I understand that llvm-gcc

Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> writes: [snip] > Here are some points worth considering: > http://www.remlab.net/op/cmake.shtml (Some of these may already be > addressed in newer cmake versions, I haven't checked recently.) Albert, Some points you mention on your web page are solved. Others are not applicable to LLVM. Others can be fixed within CMake itself (with some

Hello, in order to get ready for the upcoming LLVM 3.1 release, I checked out the 3.1 Release branch. However, unlike with LLVM 3.0, `llvm-config --libfiles` now also reports files that belong to targets that I did not build (and that are thus not available). Is this expected? Thanks, Keno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Ok, I attached it to the bug. For reference, here's what I'm using on unix as a workaround as long as this is not fixed: llvm-config --libfiles | xargs -n 1 -I {} sh -c 'test -f {} && echo {}' On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Albert Graef <Dr.Graef at t-online.de> wrote: > On 05/13/2012 02:46 AM, Keno Fischer wrote: > > Currently, there's a regression

On Monday 09 June 2008, Albert Graef wrote: > Unfortunately, that approach doesn't work on x86-64 with LLVM 2.2, > since some parts of the LLVM JIT apparently contain non-relocatable > code; I hope that this will be fixed in the forthcoming LLVM 2.3. Unfortunately it's not fixed in 2.3 :( I made a patch ([1]) for 2.2 and gave it to one of the developer, I guess he forgot about

Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > See Owen's email about docs for the 2.6 release, but it's really not > that hard to keep up with trunk. I recently merged trunk LLVM into > Unladen Swallow, and the changes I needed to make are at > http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/source/detail?r=724. Thanks Jeffrey, that was really very helpful! I have Pure working with both the LLVM 2.6

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Some points you mention on your web page are solved. Which ones? (Just curious.) > Others are not applicable to LLVM. That might be the case now, but the lack of even basic functionality in some areas (in particular, no advanced feature checks, no make dist/distcheck, no make uninstall, lack of useful trace options when something goes wrong during a build, arcane