similar to: [LLVMdev] Build-bot host compiler upgrades and C++11!

Hi Chandler, I'm still migrating our bots, there were some complications. Can it wait until next week? cheers, --renato On 13 January 2014 22:00, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > FYI, this is happening now-ish! > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com>wrote: > >> Greetings, starting a new thread and

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:18 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > This change broke the gcc compile farm bots. On the compile farm, gcc is > normally around version 4.4. However, gcc 4.8.2 is available in the > non-default directory /opt/cfarm/gcc-latest/bin > > Maybe we can adapt the buildbots to find it there. > > @Duncan, do you have time to do so? >

AKA: MinGW + win32threads is holding LLVM (and all of its subprojects) back. We need to stop supporting this host platform. I'm aware of essentially 2 reasonably important use cases for supporting MinGW + win32threads: 1) Sane host toolchain on Windows that doesn't require downloading MSVC. (I'm dubious about the value of this one...) 2) Cross-compiling a Windows clang.exe (and

(re-sending to the actual mailing lists... go go gadget typos!) On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 2:23 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > Greetings, > > This has been discussed many times, and there are a lot of pro's and con's > on each side, but increasingly I think the project needs to draw a line in > the sand and put in place long-term policies around

+1, thanks again for driving this. On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:57 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The discussion seems to have died down and gotten good consensus. I’ve > therefore create a patch which applies the proposed soft-errors: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D57264 > > > We’ll only migrate to hard-error (and start using new

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:37 AM via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Please include MSVC in the table. While the picture on Windows is way less > complicated than for *nix, it's still a platform and toolchain that matter > to a number of us in the community. > > > > Separately, there was talk of needing to have bots that specifically use > the

Hi Rick, Tobi, now that we have a way to link polly statically into the tools, we can turn on the windows polly build-bot. Let's speak about the config that the bot will run: ISL only (no CLooG), imath as a replacement for GMP, and cmake to configure llvm. The compiler will be MSVC 2013: we have verified that the current ISL version with the two patches that I sent out for ISL are compiling

I'm happy to announce that Google has migrated to libc++, and we're ready for C++14 and beyond. JF, what are the remaining blockers? /Eric On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 5:12 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On May 6, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:44 PM James Y

> On Jan 23, 2019, at 4:15 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > If we claim to support a Thing, then we should accept patches to fix when the Thing breaks. Whether a bot verifies that the Thing works, is not really relevant; "support" means "we say this works and will fix it when it breaks." > > A bot is a service to the community in

I'd expect that either we'll either workaround the issues (e.g. not start using the broken feature), or else propose to require even newer versions. And as now, discuss the expected tradeoff between new features and requiring new compiler versions. On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:22 AM Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 1/22/2019 3:44 PM, JF

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:44 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > Given the small number of library features added by c++14, and given that > they were mostly already implemented in libstdc++ 4.9 [1], I suspect that > moving to c++14 with that stdlib as the minimum probably will not actually > cause friction for developers who are using normal toolchains to be able

Hey Galina, Will; I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually running any of the Clang tests! Could one of you tweak this build bot's configuration to match the other

I have moved onto the next phase and committed r229185, which makes VS2013 our minimum version. I will revert if issues arise, and we can rinse and repeat as necessary. Once it sticks for a bit I’ll update the docs too. -Chris > On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > > I agree with Aaron, this should not be a blocker because the workaround is

> On May 6, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > I know you'll be shocked that we've slipped in our efforts. ;] I don't have a super meaningful ETA update though -- a bunch of unknows have been found and addressed, and again, I feel like we might finish this in roughly a month. > > On the flip side, I do want to clarify the

> On Apr 1, 2019, at 4:10 PM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 1, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:16 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but > not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion > failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: > the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually > running any of the Clang tests! > > Could one

It came up on another thread that our current minimum required CMake version 2.8.8, has some bugs that cause issues when building with MSVC + Ninja, and one potential solution was to raise the minimum required version of CMake. CMake 3.0 is now 6 months old and CMake 3.1 has been released. I would like to propose moving our minimum required CMake version to 3.0. I’ve attached patches to enforce

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:16 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello folks (except fans of April 1st: this is *not* a joke), > > We discussed migrating past C++11 > <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-January/129452.html> recently > and got consensus. This led us to bump our minimum toolchain requirements >

Hello, I suspect that r260758 by kparzysz at codeaurora.org broke build the windows bots which are using Visual Studio 2013 or lower. This doc here specifies that the minimum version required is VS-2013: http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#host-c-toolchain-both-compiler-and-standard-library I do see that the bots running VS-2014 or higher are green. Can we either revert the said commit or

On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 1:48 AM George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > Thanks, David! > > > Few minor additions to the topic: > > > > I'm not sure which MSVC version on godbolt would be "MSVC 2017" that > the LLVM docs refer to > > > I've found that the minimal available version of MSVC on > godbolt is "WINE MSVC 2015: