similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 stable releases

Hi, I would like to begin the 3.4.2 release process for LLVM. There have been two issues identified in 3.4.1, which there is interest in having fixed in a 3.4.x release: 1. Build failure with gcc 4.9 (This is not a regression, 3.4 also fails to build with gcc 4.9). 2. Accidental change of libLLVM's DT_SONAME from libLLVM-3.4 libLLVM-3.4.1.so I will also accept any other bug-fixes that

On 12/05/2014 16:13, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:05:20PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> On 12/05/2014 15:22, Tom Stellard wrote: >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:41:36AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> With the release of 3.4.1, the LLVM library has been renamed from >>>> libLLVM-3.4.so to

Hi, I have just tagged the first release candidate for the 3.4.1 release, so testers may begin testing. Please refer to http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseProcess.html for information on how to validate a release. If you have any questions or need something clarified, just email the list. For the 3.4.1 release we want to compare test results against 3.4-final. I have added support to the

On 12/05/2014 17:12, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:17:05PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> On 12/05/2014 16:13, Tom Stellard wrote: >>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:05:20PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >>>> On 12/05/2014 15:22, Tom Stellard wrote: >>>>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:41:36AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:

Hello, With the release of 3.4.1, the LLVM library has been renamed from libLLVM-3.4.so to libLLVM-3.4.1.so. In parallel, the soname has been updated to reflect this change. AFAIK, we kept the ABI compatible from 3.4 to 3.4.1. So, is there any reason for doing it? This caused some breakages in Debian (basically, breaking some X because of mesa could not link against LLVM due to the new soname).

On 12/05/2014 15:22, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 08:41:36AM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: >> Hello, >> >> With the release of 3.4.1, the LLVM library has been renamed from >> libLLVM-3.4.so to libLLVM-3.4.1.so. In parallel, the soname has been >> updated to >> reflect this change. >> >> AFAIK, we kept the ABI compatible from 3.4

i Don't know if others have raised this issue, but I'm seeing *a lot* of llvm-dev emails and cfe emails landing in my spam folder in gmail. Are other people having this problem? On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to begin the 3.4.2 release process for LLVM. There have > been two issues identified in

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 11:07:23 AM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 Branch Freeze > > On Wed, Dec

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:55:43 AM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 Branch Freeze > > On Fri, Dec

Hi, Fixing http://llvm.org/PR39427 in the release_70 branch, will change the ABI of a clang built libLLVM-7.so so that it is no longer compatible with the 7.0.0 release. libLLVM-7.so built by gcc will not be affected by this fix. Changing the ABI is something we aren't supposed to do in stable releases, but this fixes an ABI difference between clang and gcc built libLLVM-7.so that is

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> > To: "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 10:24:59 AM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4 Branch Freeze > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 02:45:51PM +0100, Óscar Fuentes wrote: >

On 20 January 2014 15:44, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Thanks for the feedback. Here is a summary of the responses. > These items are still up for discussion, but if there are no > objections in the next few days, I will add these to the > release documentation: > Hi Tom, Thanks for the summary, I agree with mostly everything, but I have some specific

On 20 January 2014 16:34, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > I'm much more concerned about platform testing and validation than I am > the binaries. > That's a good point. Distributions should trust our source branches because we tested on the release platforms, not because our binary releases are out. As far as I understand, there only two "supported"

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > the other thing we need to determine is > > > > whether or not we want to maintain a stable ABI for the bugfix > > > > releases. > > > > With 3.3, the plan was to have a stable ABI, but this caused me > > > > to reject several fixes. I would recommend

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 10:57:58AM -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> > > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:55:43 AM

Hi, A few months ago, I mentioned I was interested in helping to make dot releases for LLVM 3.3. Now that 3.3 has been released, I would like to kick off the process of collecting bug fixes and merging them into the 3.3 branch. I reviewed the previous discussion about dot releases: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-April/060821.html and I've come up with the following dot

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 04:49:11PM -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> > > To: "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> > > Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 10:24:59 AM > > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.4

Hi Robert, Can you ping the code owners about these patches. It might be good to write a separate email per code owner and cc the appropriate -commits list. Thanks, Tom On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 06:16:44PM +0400, Robert Khasanov wrote: > Hi Tom, > > I would like to nominate the following patches to be backported to 3.4.1 > > Clang: > 1. r204742 - Zinovy Nis <zinovy.nis at

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:57:32AM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:02:21PM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have just tagged the first release candidate for the > > 3.4.1 release, so testers may begin testing. Please refer to > > http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseProcess.html for information on how to > > validate a release.

On 04/05/2014 02:30, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Sat, May 03, 2014 at 12:32:02AM +0100, Alp Toker wrote: >> On 02/05/2014 20:45, Tuncer Ayaz wrote: >>> Bump. >>> >>> Is it really unsupported to build llvm from scratch with gcc 4.9 and >>> libstdc++ 4.9? Should I file a bugzilla ticket instead? >> Obviously LLVM/clang should compile out of the box