similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 Pre-Announcement!

Hello LLVMers! It's that time of year for a new release of LLVM! Time sure has flown. It seems like only 4 months ago we released LLVM 3.3. :-) Anyway, here is the current plan of action: * We will branch on Monday, November 18th at 7PM PST (November 19th at 3AM GMT). * This gives us a tentative release date of December 23rd...Just in time for Christmas! :-) I'm scheduling it for the

Hi Dan, You can commit it to ReleaseNotes.rst on the branch directly, or send me a patch or just some text and I'll do it for you. Thanks, Hans On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 8:31 AM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Hans, > >> To get a change committed to the branch, first commit it to trunk as >> usual, and then request it to be merged --- ideally by filing a

Have you been sleeping poorly worried about the Clang 3.5 release? Well, this may help! The plan right now is to start testing in July with August as the target release month. There isn’t a schedule yet, of course. But it should be a goodly amount of time for all y’all to prepare for the release process. If you have any questions, please let me know. If you’d like to volunteer to be a tester,

On 6/24/20 3:41 PM, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: >> When I looked into this possibility (GitHub PR) when we merged MLIR in the monorepo: just Herald rules was already a blocker and I couldn't find a replacement readily available on GitHub. The handling of stack of revisions on GitHub was another problem mentioned. > Fair enough - I haven’t investigated the technical issues with

Hi All, Here is my current draft of the LLVM 2.1 release announcement. Unlike previous announcements, I'm not planning to largely duplicate the release notes in the announcement. In addition to this, I've checked in the first draft of the release notes into llvm/docs/ReleaseNotes.html (http://llvm.org/docs/ ReleaseNotes.html). I'd really appreciate it if anyone who

On Friday 21 September 2007, Chris Lattner wrote: > In addition to this, I've checked in the first draft of the release > notes into llvm/docs/ReleaseNotes.html (http://llvm.org/docs/ > ReleaseNotes.html). The release notes mention llvm-gcc 4.2, but the prerelease only included llvm-gcc 4.0. Is the final release going to include 4.0 or 4.2 or both? Bye, Maarten --------------

Not yet. That is, I don't think any have been filed at all for 3.0. I don't know whether to be happy or worried. :-) Any that are regressions should be marked with the 'regression' keyword and be a release blocker. -bw On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Do we have a list of which PRs have been filed that are considered release blockers?

Hi Hans, > To get a change committed to the branch, first commit it to trunk as > usual, and then request it to be merged --- ideally by filing a > blocker bug on PR35804, or by cc'ing me on the commit email. > What about adding a project to the list of projects ported to LLVM 6.0 in `docs/ReleaseNotes.rst`? I have a project that I've just ported to LLVM 6.0 that I'd like

>> In addition to this, I've checked in the first draft of the release >> notes into llvm/docs/ReleaseNotes.html (http://llvm.org/docs/ >> ReleaseNotes.html). > > The release notes mention llvm-gcc 4.2, but the prerelease only included > llvm-gcc 4.0. Is the final release going to include 4.0 or 4.2 or both? I will be releasing a source tar ball of llvm-gcc4.2, but

Hello everybody, I don't quite understand how the proposed regex library works but I know that PEG parser generators use a super-set of regex functionality to define their parsers. There's also a nice one on Google code called YARDparser that uses templates based on PEGs to generate efficient recursive-decent parsers. Furthermore, my partner and I am working on an interpreter for PEG

On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 11:21 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote: > Dear Phil: > > I just read the Thread in the archives of the CentOS Mailing List on the > web, about memory problems with Evolution. Your messages were very > interesting and a wake up call for me. > > I'm currently running CentOS 3.4 and using Evolution 1.4.5. > > Question: I was planning to move to CentOS

Ubuntu 8.04 Wine 1.1.10 The sonic mega collection contains almost every genesis sonic game, along with some game gear sonics. The game installed flawlessly, and the no-cd patch worked also. However, upon loading, it shows a faint shadow of the famous SEGA startup screen and then locks up and must be force killed. Changing it to various compat modes did nothing. Normal Output: Code: name at

> We will be branching for the 3.3 release one Monday, May 6th at 5PM PDT (Tuesday, May 7th 12:00 midnight GMT). I noticed there is a 3.3 branch in svn, but not in git. Anton, are you still the one managing the git repos? Also, I just added a note to the release info on trunk before noticing we had branched. I was about to port it over, but then noticed that

Anton, Seems release_34 is orphan in llvm.git and clang.git. Could you tweak them? 2013/11/19 Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com>: > We have officially branched for the LLVM 3.4 release!! > > This means that we are now in the middle of a feature freeze. Here’s what will happen over the next several weeks: > > * Nov 19 - Nov 24: This is Phase I testing. During this time,

We have officially branched for the LLVM 3.4 release!! This means that we are now in the middle of a feature freeze. Here’s what will happen over the next several weeks: * Nov 19 - Nov 24: This is Phase I testing. During this time, you are still able to add code to the release branch. However, you will need to have the approval of the code owner before committing it. We are mostly looking for

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 11:24 PM David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Christian Kühnel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > >>> In Github pull requests there is always a git commit that you can just > >>> feed to the build server. And you can be sure of what really gets > merged. > >>> You review, build and test

Bill, I have the openmp support in llvm 3.5svn now built on 10.7 using Xcode 4.6.3 and 10.8/10.9 using 5.1.1. The 10.7 build required the hack… perl -pi -e 's|list\(APPEND SANITIZER_COMMON_SUPPORTED_DARWIN_OS iossim\)||g' projects/compiler-rt/CMakeLists.txt to suppress building libclang_rt.asan_iossim_dynamic.dylib. The compiler-rt build now expects the iPhoneSimulator7.0.0.sdk but

Hi Developers, This is to clarify which patches may be merged into the 3.5 branch. * All doc changes may go in. In fact, you’re encouraged to update the branch's ReleaseNotes.rst file! :-) * All non-documentation patches should first receive approval from the appropriate code maintainer. (A blanket approval is acceptable for the first phase of testing.) * If your patch fixes a major bug,

It was unfortunate that the CentOS 4.7 release announcement did not refer to the Release Notes on the wiki: http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS4.7 I propose to put this link in the Download page ( http://wiki.centos.org/Download ) instead of, or in addition to, the current link which points to the 4.7 announcement. Akemi

Hi, > Since NUT is guessing, is there a way to make it list likely drivers back to the user when they are a close match and check validity for each one until it gets a good connection? Part of auto select? What NUT currently does in `usbhid-ups` (some other drivers may handle similar stuff differently), is it goes through a list of subdrivers built into the binary and calls those