similar to: [LLVMdev] IMPORTANT: Change of release tarball. Yes, again.

Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> writes: > Dear All, > > The release tarball was just reverted to old (original) state. > > This is what I have locally: > > $ shasum llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz > 42d139ab4c9f0c539c60f5ac07486e9d30fc1280 llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz > > Please let me know asap, if something is still broken. I'm confused. Does the release

> I'm confused. Does the release tarball now match RELEASE_32/final or > not? If not, that's a problem for those of us who count on the > repository matching the actual release. > > At the very least they should match so we can check out the release at > some point in the future. They should match now -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and

While the sizes now match the SHA256 checksum do not match the original compressed tarballs. /usr/ports/devel/llvm # sha256 /usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz SHA256 (/usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz) = 265109c71b4fab8dc12ced314955921695c1ef549719553b0bc1e325110e143e root at sex:/usr/ports/devel/llvm # ls -l /usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel

> 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

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

Anton, please add release_32 also in; clang-tools-extra compiler-rt dragonegg libcxxabi lldb They have release_32 in svn. I don't know they might be released, though. And, could you suppress generating refs/heads/svn-tags and prune them for now? I am sure that orphan branches will stress the llvm.org server to begin git-pack-ing whole tree. ...Takumi 2012/11/15 Anton Korobeynikov

Should be there On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > Anton, please add release_32 also in; > > clang-tools-extra > compiler-rt > dragonegg > libcxxabi > lldb > > They have release_32 in svn. I don't know they might be released, though. > > And, could you suppress generating refs/heads/svn-tags and prune them

On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > > While the sizes now match the SHA256 checksum do not match the original > compressed tarballs. > > /usr/ports/devel/llvm # sha256 /usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz > SHA256 (/usr/ports/distfiles/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz) = 265109c71b4fab8dc12ced314955921695c1ef549719553b0bc1e325110e143e > root at

> On 2016-Feb-05, at 15:22, James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > > That usually happens when someone deletes and then recreates an svn branch with the same name, as happened in r215001 and r215011. > It can be deleted now, if anyone wants to. ``` $ git push llvm.org :release_35 at 215010 fatal: unable to access 'http://llvm.org/git/llvm.git/': The requested

Hi, Has there been discussion about having svn mirror git instead of vice versa? I've been happy with the git+cmake+ninja combo for a while now, but the online docs suggests this configuration is second-class to svn+autotools+make. Is the community transitioning to any particular configuration? Thanks, Greg On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:19 AM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at

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

Hi everybody. I''d like to announce that 3.2.11, 3.1.10, 3.0.19, and 2.3.15 have been released. These releases contain two **extremely critical security fixes** so please update **IMMEDIATELY**. You can read about the security fixes by following these links: * [CVE-2013-0155](https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-security/browse_thread/thread/b75585bae4326af2) *

Hi everybody. I''d like to announce that 3.2.11, 3.1.10, 3.0.19, and 2.3.15 have been released. These releases contain two **extremely critical security fixes** so please update **IMMEDIATELY**. You can read about the security fixes by following these links: * [CVE-2013-0155](https://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-security/browse_thread/thread/b75585bae4326af2) *

In message <20130115001601.GA26444 at cs.nctu.edu.tw>, =?utf-8?B?6Zmz6Z+L5Lu7IChXZ WktUmVuIENoZW4p?= writes: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 09:25:42AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote: > >=20 > > While the sizes now match the SHA256 checksum do not match the original > > compressed tarballs. > >=20 > > /usr/ports/devel/llvm # sha256

This has been discussed many times. Might want to take a look in the mailing list archives. :) cmake and autotools are on roughly equal footing at this point with chandler and I handling each of them respectively and fairly quickly. git vs. svn is a different story though. -eric On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Has there

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,

> cmake and autotools are on roughly equal footing at this point with chandler > and I handling each of them respectively and fairly quickly. git vs. svn is > a different story though. Would you be willing to put this commitment to autotools in CODE_OWNERS.TXT? Sometimes I have needed to make changes to Makefiles and didn't know who was the right person to CC for it, so having an

Hi Pawel, PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX subdirectory still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do you think update the release tarball is a good idea? Also could you remove it from the trunk? Thanks. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.) Tel:886-2-2788-3799 #1667 Homepage:

> Chandler’s complex arithmetic changes are also in the range: r219557 in clang. We saw it change the code in mandel-2 significantly. mandel-2 is broken on hard FP ABI systems, btw. The reason is simply: we're emitting a call to __muldc3 with AAPCS VFP calling convention, however, the function expects softfp (AAPCS) calling conv and reads garbage from GP registers. I'm working on fix.

On 1/14/2013 12:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: >> 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: