similar to: [LLVMdev] Using C++'11 language features in LLVM itself

On 1/10/2013 7:32 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > >> 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

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote: > 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? > Because not everyone that uses LLVM also uses Clang for every C++ compile.

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 has to be able to correctly compile hundres if not thousands of source code files.

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

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com>wrote: > On 1/10/2013 7:32 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:11 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I have been following this discussion for a while and I think the > >> question we should

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,

Hello, Just a quick reminder that the November 29th (10p.m. PST) is the end of Phase 1 testing and Release Candidate 2 (RC2) deadline. After RC2 deadline, LLVM-Clang 3.2 release will be considered feature complete and no new functionality can be added. With 2 days left please use following guidelines when initiating request for patches before RC2 deadline. I will be happy to merge *approved*

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

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

It's not a coincidence that GCC 4.2.1 is the baseline on FreeBSD considering the licensing of GPL restrictions on new releases. - Marc On 01/08/2013 04:46 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek wrote: > On 1/8/2013 5:45 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> some version of Clang and later (Freebsd folks?). > > FreeBSD 9.1 uses GCC 4.2.1 and Clang 3.0, although I have some doubts > about

On 9 Jan 2013, at 04:49, Marc J. Driftmeyer wrote: > It's not a coincidence that GCC 4.2.1 is the baseline on FreeBSD considering the licensing of GPL restrictions on new releases. [With my FreeBSD hat on] Our plan for 10.0 is to ship clang only, with gcc 4.2.1 relegated to a compat package for tier 1 architectures. This should be x86, x86-64, and ARMv6/7 (and maybe v8 if we're very

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

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. > > >

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:

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: > >> > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer

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

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 07:36, ????????? (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > >

On Jan 9, 2013, at 2:38 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 9 Jan 2013, at 04:49, Marc J. Driftmeyer wrote: > >> It's not a coincidence that GCC 4.2.1 is the baseline on FreeBSD considering the licensing of GPL restrictions on new releases. > > [With my FreeBSD hat on] > > Our plan for 10.0 is to ship clang only, with gcc 4.2.1

On 12/4/2012 10:14 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > What is the procedure for updating the release notes? I've been committing > changes to the trunk version, should I be editing them elsewhere? Or will > the trunk version be merged in? The exact procedure is not spelled out but I think the easiest would be to merge relevant "ReleaseNotes.html" changes from the trunk,

On 11/17/2012 6:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 17, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote: > >> I think that the code owner process is becoming complicated and I am not sure if it serves Chris's original intent. I don't think that we need to change every file nor do we need an automatic tool to find the owner. I think that a simple text