similar to: [LLVMdev] Fwd: Re: [cfe-dev] [RFC] Looking for LLVM 3.2 Release Manager

Hello! For the next release, LLVM 3.2, we are looking for a release manager. We would tentatively branch for the release around the time of the LLVM Developers Conference and release approximately a month afterwards. If you are willing to take on this responsibility, please contact me directly at wendling at apple.com. Cheers! -bw

It is very exciting to see experimental Windows support listed for 3.3. Is there documentation somewhere that tracks what works and what doesn't in this configuration, particularly for C++?. Otherwise it is difficult for those not actively involved in developing Windows support to know what to expect when experimenting. Thanks, Andrew On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Bill Wendling

Hello, Is there a chance to get Darwin 32 bit binaries? On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Somorjai, Akos <ASomorjai at graphisoft.com> wrote: > Thanks, downloading at the moment. > > Best, > > Ákos > > > On 11/27/11 3:35 AM, "Bill Wendling" <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > >>Rather, use this URL for the darwin binaries: >> >>  

Binaries (at least darwin), anyone? Thanks, Ákos On 11/1/11 6:38 AM, "Bill Wendling" <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >Hello! > >We are now in Phase 2 of testing for the LLVM 3.0 release! Please >consider getting a copy of the sources and testing them out on your >projects. The sources can be found here: > > http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.0/rc2 > >What

I'll make them available tonight. Sorry for the delay. -bw On Nov 7, 2011, at 4:57 AM, Somorjai, Akos wrote: > Binaries (at least darwin), anyone? > > Thanks, > > Ákos > > > On 11/1/11 6:38 AM, "Bill Wendling" <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> We are now in Phase 2 of testing for the LLVM 3.0 release! Please

Which files are needed to build clang? Is it clang-3.0rc2 and llvm-3.0rc3 or do I need the whole test suite? John Dr John P. Fletcher Tel: (44) 121 204 3389 (direct line), FAX: (44) 121 204 3678 Chemical Engineering and Applied Chemistry (CEAC), Associate Dean - External Relations, School of Engineering and Applied Science (EAS), Aston University, Aston Triangle, BIRMINGHAM B4 7ET 

Hey, Do you want projects which specifically use LLVM 3.1 or just LLVM in general? Regards, Alex On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all! > > Please remember to update the release notes! We're getting close to the release date, and we need the notes to be up-to-date. > > Also, if you have a project which uses LLVM, please

Please nuke it. It is really old and was never used. If it comes back it should be done with module metadata. -Chris On Nov 26, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Did you know that there is a 'deplibs' keyword? Neither did I. It looks like it's not really used for much. We don't document it in the Language Reference.

I'm not sure I follow. Will the final binaries have a bad RPATH or not? A 1sec startup pause on some (admittedly crazy) systems seems like a big deal to me. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > > It's probably PR12517. > > > >

Hi Bill, I was running some benchmarks and was surprised that the startup performance of your binaries is much worse than the stable binaries for 3.2 I've used: http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/clang+llvm-3.2-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-12.04.tar.gz vs http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.3/rc3/clang+llvm-3.3rc3-Ubuntu-12.04.2-x86_64.tar.gz On a simple hello.c file: /ssd/bench$ TIMEFORMAT="%E"

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

The ARM binaries seem to be corrupt. Although correctly signed, the xz file seems to be truncated arm7% unxz < clang+llvm-3.5.0-rc3-armv7a-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz | wc -c unxz: (stdin): Unexpected end of input 133214381 M.E.O. On Aug 21, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Ahem. And now for the correct URL: > >

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

Hi Bill, For the GNU runtimes, this metadata is stored in the module structure in each compilation unit, and uses a different set of flags. Do you have any plans for this to be generic, or is it intended just for Darwin? David On 19 Jan 2012, at 23:33, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi Sandeep, > > ObjC is the first place that I will use it, of course (we need it to fix LTO). Other uses

Dears, If you remove this keyword, will you keep the backward compatibility in LLVM 3.x? We use this keyword in our project for checking dependent libraries, and we rely on the promise that bitcode format will keep compatible in LLVM 3.x. In our project, we compile and save bitcodes for later use, but we always try to keep our runtime upstream. Hence, we need readers recognize previous version

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> After several years as LLVM release manager, I’ve decided to step down as release manager. I recently haven’t been able to focus as much time on LLVM development as I should, and I don’t want the releases to suffer

That’s a long laundry list of bugs there. It would be great to have them fixed, but the reality of the situation is that they won’t be fixed for weeks or more, if at all. And with Christmas coming up, it makes things even worse. There are a few days before Phase III starts to have some progress on them. But if they don’t make it, then we’ll have to release without them. -bw On Dec 12, 2013, at

Hi Bill, I committed a fix already as r355743 [1], and it fixes `test2` as well. I believe we should merge this into 8.0. /Eric [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/680e865c313a80b6ec329abde61e1f0c66bdc103 On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:46 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > The attached patch may help matters, though it now fails because

What about SelectionDAG representation? Currently we expand callbr to INLINEASM_BR and BR. Both of which are terminators. But in order to support outputs we would need to put CopyFromReg nodes between them. ~Craig On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:18 PM Nick Desaulniers via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > + CBL mailing list > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:08 AM Bill

I'm not sure a decision was already made as such. I think it's more that there was a flurry of conversation last time with lots of conflicting opinions, and then the conversation just fizzled out. FWIW, I like Phabricator but I'm willing to try GitHub. Overall I think we should take the same approach that eventually led to Phabricator being widely adopted: We should allow GitHub