similar to: [LLVMdev] [3.5 Release] Release Candidate 3 Now Available

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

On 27 August 2014 11:24, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > I've asked him to test out whether this is still needed, but I strongly > suspect that this is trying to cope with the same fundamental bug. It means > that the source packages for 3.5 or non '.deb' binary packages will fail to > work on any modern debian or ubuntu 32-bit distro without

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: > >

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,

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 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,

This is just a reminder that the 3.5 release will be starting up in July. Most likely the 2nd week. Details will come later. But you can help things along. * Be sure to update the READMEs! * Try to get your new features in good working condition. * Tackle some of the bugs in the bugzilla. Focus on mis-compilations. * And update the READMEs!! Share and enjoy! -bw

After several years as LLVM release manager, I’ve decided to step down as release manager. I recently haven’t been able to focus as much time on LLVM development as I should, and I don’t want the releases to suffer because of that. I’ve enjoyed all of the releases I’ve done. We have a great team of testers. And the community as a whole really helps out so that we can produce a great produce. I my

On 9/25/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On 9/24/07, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > > > Weird. I see a potential problem, though. The code is like this: > > > > void dumpToDOUT(SparseBitVector<> *bitmap) { > > dump(*bitmap, DOUT); > > } >

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Bill Wendling<isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> The core problem, in my opinion, is that people *don't* pay attention >> to the build bot failure messages that come along. > > That's largely because of the number of false positives. > There

Looking forward to these changes! Thanks for working on it. On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I can try my best, but it would be a bit tricky to get it all finished by > then... > > -bw > > On Oct 11, 2013, at 4:10 AM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > > Bill, > > Are there

On Aug 14, 2014, at 7:10 AM, Ben Pope <benpope81 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 02:13 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> I’m sorry for the late announcement. >> >> The binaries for the 3.5 release candidate 2 are now available. Please >> pick them up here and test them out! >> >> http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.5/ > > Can somebody

On Jan 3, 2015, at 11:52 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:32 PM, David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I am new to the LLVM dev community so forgive a perhaps obvious question. I am looking at bug 17623 which is an LTO/optimizer interaction bug. I am working on a Mac with Xcode installed but have

Hi Anton, git-svn got confused at the branch point for the release_31: I see that the current release_31 branch has been created on r155051 as a copy of r155050 from trunk, and r155050 is actually removing an older release_31 branch: Revision 155050 Author: void Date: Wed Apr 18 16:38:33 2012 CDT (11 days, 20 hours ago) Log Message: Removing old release_31 branch for rebranching. This

Hi again, I was studying and building the lfort repository as I said I would do, but after a while I decided that I would like to work on flang instead. So, I forked flang and so far I've had pretty good success with it, here's what I've done: - Merged a pull request from a github user Michael Gottesman(He added support for latest llvm and cmake) - Fixed character literal continuation

FYI: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-October/066389.html Please read and let me know you comments. -bw On Oct 11, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Dmitry Babokin <babokin at gmail.com> wrote: > Looking forward to these changes! Thanks for working on it. > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:00 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:44 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:29 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> >>> wrote:

On 6/28/19 5:35 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com<mailto:isanbard at gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com<mailto:jyknight at google.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:00 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com<mailto:isanbard at

Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> writes: [snip] > All four of the above should be run on at least a nightly basis (more > frequently for some, like the regression tests). Each of these are > automated, making that easy. If there are no regressions from the > above four, we could tag that revision as being potentially "valid". If a new test case is created

Hi, I'm pleased to say that my latest attempt at running test-release.sh finished with minor issues (see below) so I'm planning to provide an big-endian MIPS32r2 pre-built binary in the LLVM 3.5 as an experimental/beta release. I was originally hoping to provide little-endian binaries too but I think there's insufficient time remaining for me to get that ready in time for Phase 1