similar to: [LLVMdev] clang+llvm-3.2-x86-linux-ubuntu-12.04 targets x86_64 instead of x86

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] clang+llvm-3.2-x86-linux-ubuntu-12.04 targets x86_64 instead of x86"

2012 Dec 21
0
[LLVMdev] clang+llvm-3.2-x86-linux-ubuntu-12.04 targets x86_64 instead of x86
lang+llvm-3.2-x86-linux-ubuntu-12.04$ ./bin/clang -v clang version 3.2 (tags/RELEASE_32/final) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix Downloaded from http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/clang+llvm-3.2-x86-linux-ubuntu-12.04.tar.gz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:
2013 Jan 16
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.2: conflict with Ubuntu 12.04's version 3.0 of LLVM
Alan, > Hi, > > I am working on a Qt project which relies on various plugins, one of which being an LLVM plugin which I build from the LLVM 3.2 source code. Everything works fine on Windows and OS X, but not on Ubuntu 12.04. Did you use configure/Make or CMake to build llvm-3.2? > > Basically, my application runs fine, but when I close it I get a "Segmentation fault (core
2013 Jan 13
0
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
Anton, > Pawel, > > We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but > I think you should understand the implications of your actions. > > You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the > ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and > rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to
2013 Jan 11
1
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
On 1/11/2013 7:15 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > Removed from trunk. Pawel can decide if its necessary to update the > tarballs. > > Thanks for the report! Apparently git-svn does not delete removed > directories. PTX directories still exists in release_32 branch and RELEASE_32/final. But they are all empty so PTX can not be build. > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:36
2013 Jan 11
0
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
On 1/11/2013 2:51 PM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at
2013 Jan 13
3
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
Pawel, We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but I think you should understand the implications of your actions. You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to the users of FreeBSD, Gentoo, etc. Even worse,
2013 Jan 13
2
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
Pawel, First, all your help with the 3.2 release is greatly appreciated. I do not think anyone is saying otherwise. I apologize for the lack of documentation regarding this issue. I do ask that you consult with previous release manager (myself or Bill) to determine what the best course of action is. There is a lot of room to improve our release process, but its a collaborative effort. You are
2013 Jan 11
2
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> > >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski > >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26
2013 Jan 11
0
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
On 1/11/2013 3:59 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
2012 Nov 14
0
[LLVMdev] 3.2 Release has branched :T+2 hours
I can't find any release_32 branch at http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git or http://llvm.org/git/clang.git. /Patrik Hägglund -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Pawel Wodnicki Sent: den 12 november 2012 07:03 To: llvmdev; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: [LLVMdev] 3.2 Release has branched :T+2 hours We have branched
2013 Jan 11
0
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> >> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer >>> <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 11.01.2013, at
2012 Nov 12
2
[LLVMdev] 3.2 Release has branched :T+2 hours
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
2013 Jan 10
3
[LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself
On 1/10/2013 12:11 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> writes: > >> Clang is good enough to bootstrap itself on practically >> any platform I can think of or it can be cross-bootstrapped >> if needed. > > You're completely ignoring communities that compile code outside > llvm+clang. Any compiler chosen by that group
2012 Nov 14
0
[LLVMdev] 3.2 Release has branched :T+2 hours
Should be there. Please let me know if there are any problems with them On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: >> I can't find any release_32 branch at http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git or http://llvm.org/git/clang.git. > Unfortunately, this requires manual grafting, since git-svn does > really bad job here. > > I'm going
2012 Nov 14
3
[LLVMdev] 3.2 Release has branched :T+2 hours
> I can't find any release_32 branch at http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git or http://llvm.org/git/clang.git. Unfortunately, this requires manual grafting, since git-svn does really bad job here. I'm going to work on this tonight. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University
2013 Jan 10
0
[LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > On 1/10/2013 12:11 PM, dag at cray.com wrote: > > Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> writes: > > > >> Clang is good enough to bootstrap itself on practically > >> any platform I can think of or it can be cross-bootstrapped > >> if needed. > > >
2013 Jan 17
0
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
Mark, > Pawel, > You don't know me but I'm one of the release engineers for > BIND 9 and BIND 8 before that. I have been doing release engineering > for about 1.5 decades now. One of the things you DO NOT do is > replace a tarball. Machines get compromised. Good distributions > get replaced with tainted versions. One of the few ways the rest > of the world has
2012 Dec 14
1
[LLVMdev] LLVM 3.2 release notes + LLVM Users
The LLVM 3.2 release is winding down, and that means release notes! There are two pieces to this. First, if you're an external LLVM user, we'd like to list you as such in the release notes. This is a great way to get some free advertisement. The section is here: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_32/docs/ReleaseNotes.html?revision=HEAD#externalproj Please email
2013 Jan 10
5
[LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself
Hello, I have been following this discussion for a while and I think the question we should be asking is: Why do we want to even bother with all these other broken C++ compilers in a first place? Clang is good enough to bootstrap itself on practically any platform I can think of or it can be cross-bootstrapped if needed. I think usage of any language features should be decided based on
2013 Jan 13
0
[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release
Brooks, > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski >>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>