similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4rc3 Now Available

The ARM binaries seem to be corrupt. Although correctly signed, the xz file seems to be truncated arm7% unxz < clang+llvm-3.5.0-rc3-armv7a-linux-gnueabihf.tar.xz | wc -c unxz: (stdin): Unexpected end of input 133214381 M.E.O. On Aug 21, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Ahem. And now for the correct URL: > >

On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > It's probably PR12517. > > Looking at the clang binary, it's got a /home/ dir in RPATH: > > $ objdump -p clang+llvm-3.3rc3-Ubuntu-12.04.2-x86_64/bin/clang | grep RPATH > RPATH >

I'm not sure I follow. Will the final binaries have a bad RPATH or not? A 1sec startup pause on some (admittedly crazy) systems seems like a big deal to me. On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > > It's probably PR12517. > > > >

The third 3.5 release candidate is now available. Please pick up sources and binaries here: https://llvm.org/pre-release/3.5 Run it through its phases and report any bugs you find! Share and enjoy! -bw

Hi Bill, I was running some benchmarks and was surprised that the startup performance of your binaries is much worse than the stable binaries for 3.2 I've used: http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/clang+llvm-3.2-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-12.04.tar.gz vs http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.3/rc3/clang+llvm-3.3rc3-Ubuntu-12.04.2-x86_64.tar.gz On a simple hello.c file: /ssd/bench$ TIMEFORMAT="%E"

It's probably PR12517. Looking at the clang binary, it's got a /home/ dir in RPATH: $ objdump -p clang+llvm-3.3rc3-Ubuntu-12.04.2-x86_64/bin/clang | grep RPATH RPATH $ORIGIN/../lib:/home/aadgrand/tmp/LLVM-3.3rc3/rc3/Phase3/Release+Asserts/llvmCore-3.3-rc3.obj/Release+Asserts/bin This will slow things down if the system tries to automount /home/aadgrand. Maybe we should merge r182559

Hi LLVM-ites! We are doing a quick test of 3.3rc3. Our testers did a quick turn around and created binaries which you can test. Please give them a go and let us know how they work for you. They are here: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.3/rc3 We don't have a lot of time remaining in the release cycle, so please do whatever you can to make sure they are solid. In particular, make sure that

+grosbach Hi Hal, Re (1): Jim is our resident ARM expert. Adding him here. Re (2): There are a ton of simple programs that have been reported over the last month that are failing at higher levels. It's quite disturbing, really. I don't have a lot of time to debug these (it's no longer my main job to work on LLVM). I'll try to press people as much as possible. -bw On Wed, Dec

Hi David, Yes. It was the main reason why I decided to do an RC3. :-) -bw On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:41 AM, David Terei wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Is the fix for Bug 9561 included? (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9561) > > Cheers, > David. > > On 26 March 2011 18:38, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The good news:

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:07:25PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi David, > > Yes. It was the main reason why I decided to do an RC3. :-) > > -bw Bill, Any chance we can squeeze http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9571#c13 into llvm-gcc-4.2-2.9 for the final llvm-gcc release? Jack > > On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:41 AM, David Terei wrote: > > > Hi

The LLVM 3.4rc2 binaries are now available for testing! Please download them and compile and test things. See if it breaks your code! Please file bugs for any issues you encounter. At this point, we’re only accepting fixes for regressions from 3.3. Share and enjoy! -bw

Bill, et al., FYI, there are currently two issues that I'm tracking that should be fixed prior to release: 1. PowerPC self-hosting is currently broken(*), triggered by a change made to improve if conversion on ARM. There is a patch on the commits list that fixes problems seen by self hosting (and, if nothing else, that patch should likely go into 3.4), but I don't think that any of us

See http://llvm.org/PR19289 for lots of details. It had already been reported before but I had missed it and so had most others. =[ I'm pretty sure this breaks every 32-bit debian based Linux distro. I've asked David Majnemer to try to confirm or refute that. If it does impact every 32-bit debian based Linux distro, I think this should be a release blocker sad as I am to say it. CC-ing

Hi Bill, Is the fix for Bug 9561 included? (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9561) Cheers, David. On 26 March 2011 18:38, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The good news: RC2 testing was successful in that it uncovered a bad regression from 2.8 (which existed in top-of-tree). It also showed that there was an unincorporated fix that needed to go into

Hi all, The testers started testing 3.1rc3. You can find binaries at http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.1/rc3/. Please file bugs and report any issues to me. Thanks! -bw

We had to roll a release candidate 4 for the 3.5 release. It’s up at the normal place: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.5 Please test it and report any major bugs you may find. Thanks! -bw

Hi Dave, Thanks for the results. What platform is this on? And do these failures occur with 2.9? -bw On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:51 AM, David A. Greene wrote: > greened at obbligato.org (David A. Greene) writes: > >> Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com> writes: >> >>> I'm not sure if this makes a difference but I ran this >>> >>> make -j

That’s a long laundry list of bugs there. It would be great to have them fixed, but the reality of the situation is that they won’t be fixed for weeks or more, if at all. And with Christmas coming up, it makes things even worse. There are a few days before Phase III starts to have some progress on them. But if they don’t make it, then we’ll have to release without them. -bw On Dec 12, 2013, at

The LLVM 3.4 branches are now frozen. We’re only accepting major, super horrible bug fixes from now on. The testers are going to do a third phase of testing, but it’s mostly to verify that we don’t have any major problems left. Share and enjoy! -bw

Hi Matthijs, >> I did put in a hack, but it was horrible. It might be a good idea to >> test out Mike's suggestion to see if it's a better way of doing it. > I just tried building llvm-gcc without your hack, and it still works (even > without the fix Mike suggested). > > So, it seems that r54245 can be reverted again? > > I didn't test bootstrap, however,