similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 3.6 update

Could we aim for mid/late January? I'd like our target triple problems to be sorted out for LLVM 3.6 if I can and early-January doesn't leave many working days to get that finished. Especially given that many people take some holiday around Christmas and New Year. > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On

On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:50 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > Could we aim for mid/late January? I'd like our target triple problems to be sorted out for LLVM 3.6 if I can and early-January doesn't leave many working days to get that finished. Especially given that many people take some holiday around Christmas and New Year. > We generally try to make

The 3.6 release is drawing nearer, but the release notes could still use a lot of improvement: LLVM: https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/release_36/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst Clang: https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/blob/release_36/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst The good news is that they can be updated all the way up until release. If you have a patch for the release notes, commit it directly to the

Hi Jack, On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > What are the acceptable performance regressions in the generated > code for a llvm release? We seem to be badly regressed in some > benchmarks (which I first noticed from the review of 3.6-rc1 at > http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm-clang-3.5-3.6-rc1).

Hi all, I would really like to get a patch into 3.6 for libc++. The patch renames template parameters with the names '_A' and '_V' to longer names. '_A' is frequently defined in ctypes.h and that could cause libc++ to not compile. I'm fairly sure the code was added between 3.5 and 3.6 so that would make this a regression. The patch can be found here:

Marshall, you're the owner here. Is this OK to merge? On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > Yes, please. > > -Dimitry > >> On 06 Feb 2015, at 16:07, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I would really like to get a patch into 3.6 for libc++. The patch >> renames

On 05/02/2015 18:34, Hans Wennborg wrote: > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> Source and binaries for LLVM 3.6.0-rc2 are now available at >> http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.6.0/ >> >> Please try them out, run tests, build your favourite projects, and >> *file bugs* about anything that

Hello testers, RC4 has just been tagged (at r229782 on the branch). RC3 was disqualified due to an infloop that Duncan reported, and fixed in r229421. That, fixes for a few scary X86 bugs, a GCC5 bootstrap problem (PR22625), and parts of PR22589 is included in RC4. Baring any showstoppers, this release candidate will be promoted to release. Please let me know how it looks and upload binaries

Hi testers! 3.6.0-rc1 was just tagged, so testing can begin. I'm not super familiar with the testing script yet, but I believe the idea is to run it as follows: $ utils/release/test-release.sh -release 3.6.0 -rc 1 -triple x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu With the -triple value substituted for your platform. Bill's 3.5rc1 email also said 'test-suite' needs to be run by hand. Please

Hello all, Source and binaries for LLVM 3.6.0-rc2 are now available at http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.6.0/ Please try them out, run tests, build your favourite projects, and *file bugs* about anything that doesn't work or needs to be fixed for the release. Release blockers are tracked by http://llvm.org/PR22374 Cheers, Hans

Hello testers, Start your engines, RC3 has just been tagged (at r229050 on the branch). If this one looks good, it will become the release. There has been quite a bit of activity on the branch since RC2; let's hope it's all goodness :-) Please let me know how it looks, and upload binaries to the sftp as usual. Thanks for all your efforts so far! - Hans

Hi testers, 3.6.0-rc2 was just tagged. Please test and build binaries. The tracking bug for 3.6 blockers is http://llvm.org/pr22374. Please file issues against it. Thanks for helping with the release! Hans

Reminder: The plan is to create the 3.6 branch next week, on 14 January. Please help get the release notes and other documents updated. For example, both the LLVM [1] and Clang [2] release notes look pretty empty. Also, if you'd like to volunteer to be a release tester, please let me know. Cheers, Hans 1. http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html 2.

You're not the only one Hans, my VMs have started crashing my host OS :) Fedora and OpenSUSE look good, binaries uploaded. On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 3.5.1-rc1 has been tagged, so it is time to begin testing. We

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 04:28:55PM +0000, Renato Golin wrote: > On 31 January 2015 at 00:42, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > 3.6.0-rc2 was just tagged. Please test and build binaries. > > Hi Hans, > > I just built RC2 with the patch that fixes the NEON builds on ARM and > uploaded to the FTP site. It checks-all clean, but I'm running the >

I've uploaded clang+llvm-3.5.1-rc2-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz and clang+llvm-3.5.1-rc2-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz. The latter fails prune.m in 'make check-all' as it did last time but this is because the 'touch -a' command isn't actually changing the access timestamp. I've started the test-suite for both of them. ________________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces

Hi all Thanks for all the replies and engagement on this issue. First point, given the state of discussions today I would like to propose that we don't start the merge at 10:00 GMT on Monday 13th as proposed and we delay by at least 24 hours until after the scheduled F18 technical call on Monday afternoon. In order to help compile a plan of action, I've tried to compile a list of the

On 15 January 2015 at 13:35, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > AArch64 tested and uploaded. ARMv7 in progress. Hi Hans, ARMv7 is giving me a bit of a headache... I've tried building on two different machines and I get the same error... Phase 2 completes successfully, but while building Phase 3, I get the error on *every* file: 1.

Hello everyone, Please let me know if you'd like to help providing binaries and testing for your favourite platform. If you were a tester on the previous release, I've bcc'd you on this email. I propose this schedule for the 3.7 release: - 14 July 2015: Create the release branch. - 14 July -- 21 July: Testing Phase I. RC1 binaries are built and tested. - 22 July -- 29 July: Fix

On 31 Jan 2015, at 20:24, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: ... >> This is because the ulimit -t 600 was exceeded, as shown in dmesg: >> >> pid 78288 (python2.7), uid 1000, was killed: exceeded maximum CPU limit >> >> Can we bump the -t limit a little?