similar to: [LLVMdev] Bugzilla bug mail

I've just noticed that this is a new test added in r248325 and has never passed on this builder. Added the author of the test (Evgeniy). From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev Sent: 01 October 2015 20:34 To: David Blaikie Cc: llvm-dev Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-cmake-mips > > I do. I'll take

Thanks. From the debugging I've done so far it looks like it could be another 32-bit big-endian specific bug. It seems to be segfaulting in the memset() in allocate_stack.c (from glib) because given stack pointer is null. I'm guessing this is because it read the wrong half of a 64-bit value somewhere but I haven't identified where it goes wrong. ________________________________________

On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > I do. I'll take a look. > > Is there a way for owners to get emails for long-lasting failures? > I'm not sure what the generic setup is, but at least for the builder/slave I admin, it emails me on every failure. So I get a lot of mail, continuously, if there's a consistent

On 03/22/2016 02:44 PM, Ehsan Amiri wrote: > Thanks. > > *Phillip, *As Hal said I do not think (1) is a very large item. Please > let me know if I am mistaken. I have no specific reason to believe it will be a large amount of work, but prior experience tells me changes to canonical form have a tendency of exposing unexpected issues. To be clear, I am supportive of you implementing

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:09 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < >> dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On

On 03/22/2016 06:50 PM, Ehsan Amiri wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 6:42 PM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > > > > On 03/22/2016 02:44 PM, Ehsan Amiri wrote: >> Thanks. >> >> *Phillip, *As Hal said I do not think (1) is a very large item. >> Please let me

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:09 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Peter Collingbourne

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 26, 2013, at 3:20 PM, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree that the list name is redundant and should be dropped, but >>>>> the revision number is compact and very useful... >>>>> >>>>> -Chris

Thanks. *Phillip, *As Hal said I do not think (1) is a very large item. Please let me know if I am mistaken. *David *I think (1) is more inline with typeless pointer work than (2). Contributing to typeless pointer work will be great, but given its unknown time frame we cannot stop fixing existing problems. Of course, we should follow an approach consistent with the long-term solution. On Tue,

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 PM, David

> On 2014-Oct-24, at 16:37, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Notice that only the links to parents (i.e., `context:`) are explicit >> here -- backlinks are implied. For example, !7 and !8 point to !6, but >> not the reverse. > > This may be a problem - the difference between nodes in a structure/class_type's member list, and those that

I was wondering if it could be useful to use such tools to keep track of users bugs. I find somehow harder to search the mailing list if a bug is known, if it's being worked on, if it needs more feedback, in witch release it has been eventually solved, and so on. Any thoughts? Regards, Diego.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:45 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:26 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Peter

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:26 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM,

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 9, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:26 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> llvmbb's job is to inform people of build breaks. However, it seems to >> trigger for a big list of bots, and at least one of them seems to always be >>

> On Dec 23, 2016, at 18:36, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). >> >> Firstly, why

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses > below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). > > Firstly, why *should* DISubprogram definitions be distinct? There were > two reasons this was valuable (this was from before there

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 2:02 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> > wrote: > > While doing the conversion of LLVM_OVERRIDE to 'override' last night, I > > noticed that the code base is rather inconsistent on whether the > 'virtual' > > keyword is also used

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:42 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>