similar to: [LLVMdev] How to commit patches?

On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: >> >> lib/Bitcode/*

Hi! Some time ago my email address, that I use for committing to LLVM SVN repo has changed (nasty corporate mail changing) and now it's not aligned with email I sent to Chris according to http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access page . Unfortunately it's not possible to forward all messages from LLVM mailing lists from my old address to new one, so I wonder

Hi all, As per the instructions here <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access>, I contacted Chris Lattner to obtain commit access but haven't received a response (either positive or negative). What's the expected turnaround time for this (I contacted him five days ago)? In case he's currently unavailable, is there someone else I could contact? Thanks,

Hi, I've recently submitted a patch to llvm-commits (as requested by https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#making-and-submitting-a-patch) and the mailing list answered with a notice that my message is held for moderator approval (with the reason: "Post by non-member to a members-only list"). I'm therefore wondering if I should've submitted my patch via Phabricator

Hi, https://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#obtaining-commit-access still describes the SVN process. How do things work now that we're on github? Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20191101/7bc2d459/attachment.html>

On Nov 11, 2012, at 5:13 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Nov 11, 2012, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> >> On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code

Hi All, While committing a patch today for someone who currently lacks commit access, I realized I had forgotten the 'Patch by' line and reverted & re-committed to add it. However, while doing so I wondered if our current policy on this still makes sense. Our policy at http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#commit-messages

Hi, everyone ! I want to upload a patch after creating a bug-41763, https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41763 How to upload a patch? Is there a user-manual ? Thanks ~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190506/4c1fa793/attachment.html>

On Nov 10, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > Hello, > > Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: > > lib/Bitcode/* > include/Bitcode/* > > This means that I'll be committed to documenting

Hi, I am intending to submit some patches that enhance the SPARC code generator. Is this the preferred place to post them, or should I send them to llvm-commit? Martin

Recently there's been some friction over reversions (I can remember two cases in recent memory). In both issues the general feel I got is that as a community we should honor "revert for more design review" requests unconditionally. What do you guys think of adding something like this to DeveloperPolicy.rst as an item at the end of the numbered list in

Yup, Phabricator is generally preferred for patches. Additionally, are you subscribed to the mailing list? I can't find where I read it now, but I believe your messages are held for moderation if you aren't subscribed. You can subscribe at http://lists.llvm.org/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits if needed. From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Christoph Kindl

On 11/11/2012 11:58 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Is there a particular sub-system size that makes sense to mark as owned? I have been >> reworking the library call simplification infrastructure recently and will be happy >> to sign up as an owner for that. > > I think that "directory level" is the right granularity. If you're interested in signing > up

Hello, I was wondering what was the current expected practice for committing patches to LLVM now that the Git monorepo is here. I have commit access to SVN but when I try to land my patched through GitHub I get an error saying "Permission to llvm/llvm-project.git denied". Depending on the answer, the documentation might need to be slightly clarified: the getting started documents for

Hello, Chris's "keynote" at the LLVM Developers' Conference included a call for code owners, and my company has a heavy dependency on Bitcode, I propose taking ownership of: lib/Bitcode/* include/Bitcode/* This means that I'll be committed to documenting (yay) the implementation and responsible for reviewing patches and commits, as well as overall code quality and

Hi, On 12/11/12 15:11, Meador Inge wrote: > On 11/11/2012 11:58 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>> Is there a particular sub-system size that makes sense to mark as owned? I have been >>> reworking the library call simplification infrastructure recently and will be happy >>> to sign up as an owner for that. >> >> I think that "directory level"

Hi all, We branched for the 3.1 release! (Yay!) If there are any fixes which you think should go into the release, please contact the code owners (http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#owners) so that they can approve the patches. No patches will be accepted into the 3.1 release without prior approval! This should be a great release! :-) -bw

Hello everyone, I'm having problem with SR-IOV transparent VLAN. My host is Fedora 22 and my guest is: pfSense 2.3. The NIC is Intel 82576. I'm using pfSense Packet Capture to check the packet and find that inbound packet still have the vlan tag. The outbound packet seem fine because the router can receive DHCP discover packet from the guest and then send DHCP offer and ARP request

> On Nov 7, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > -1 to "squash and merge" being the only option if rebase+push (--ff-only) is possible. I'd rather we use our judgement to decide what's appropriate for the pull request at hand rather than have a blanket rule. > > Personally, if I have multiple commits

Hi, I've been seeing a crash in llvm_gcda_emit_arcs() on x86_64. The crash occurs executing a movdqa instruction with an unaligned src address. The attached patch to the compiler-rt project fixes the problem by using memcpy() to read data from the write_buffer[] in GCDAProfiling.c. This is my first patch submission to llvm so please let me know if I've missed any steps. I'm not on