similar to: [LLVMdev] [3.6 Release] RC4 has been tagged

Final has been tagged, I think we're about to release it. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > Are we waiting for an RC5? It seems like the release mirror on github has > no recent activity. > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com > > wrote: > >> Quick update

Quick update before I move on to the final tag. > clang+llvm-3.6.0-rc4-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz > Still running due to a silly setup mistake on the first run (a broken > symlink to the test-suite source). Second attempt is a fair way through and > looks good so far though Default options were all good. Mips32 was about halfway but was good so far. >

We got everything, haven't we? On 26 February 2015 at 20:44, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote: > Final has been tagged, I think we're about to release it. > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:43 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Are we waiting for an RC5? It seems like the release mirror on github has >> no

Are we waiting for an RC5? It seems like the release mirror on github has no recent activity. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > Quick update before I move on to the final tag. > > > clang+llvm-3.6.0-rc4-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz > > Still running due to a silly setup mistake on the first run (a > broken >

Hello all, Source and binaries for LLVM 3.6.0-rc4 are available at http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.6.0/ There were only a few new patches since rc3: an infloop fix (r229421) a few X86 fixes (r229555, r229561 and r229564), a GCC 5 bootstrap fix (PR22625) and performance regression fix for PR22589. If this one looks good, it will be promoted to 'final' sometime next week. Thanks again to

I still haven't finished but I don't think you have to wait. On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > We got everything, haven't we? > > On 26 February 2015 at 20:44, Nikola Smiljanic <popizdeh at gmail.com> wrote: > > Final has been tagged, I think we're about to release it. > > > > On Fri, Feb 27,

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

Dear everyone, It's not quite time to start the 3.8 release process, but it's time to start planning. Please let me know if you want to help with testing and building release binaries for your favourite platform. (If you were a tester on the previous release, you're cc'd on this email.) I propose the following schedule for the 3.8 release: - 13 January: Create 3.8 branch.

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

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 5:42 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Daniel Sanders > <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: >> Here's the current status for the Mips packages. > [..] >> clang+llvm-3.7.0-rc1-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz > > The root directory in this file is >

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > Here's the current status for the Mips packages. [..] > clang+llvm-3.7.0-rc1-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz The root directory in this file is "clang+llvm-3.7.0-rc1-mipsel-linux-gnu". Is it just the name that's wrong, or does it actually have files for the wrong target?

(cc'ing non-legacy llvm-dev this time; apologies if you get this twice. Please don't reply-all to the first one.) On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Dear testers, > > Start your engines; 3.8.0-rc1 was just tagged from the 3.8 branch at > r258223. (It took a little longer than I'd planned, sorry about that.) > > There

> > Shouldn't we be > > moving to CMake based release anyway? > > Oh, the joy of having two build systems. :-( > > As long as we have two, it doesn't really matter which one we use to > build the binaries, as users building from source will still rely on > both to be working. > > - Hans On that subject, are you aware that the release builds for

> You dropped some context... > A daemon program wouldn't be readonly. An infinite loop can be. Right. To prevent miscommunication, here is a quick analysis of a problematic (IMO) example: We start with ``` define void @infloop(i1 %c) { entry: br i1 %c, label %l, label %e l: br label %l e: ret void } define void @main_func() { entry: call void @infloop(i1 1) ret

I applied the patch Gene wrote here: https://github.com/triton/nixpkgs/commit/06e146b2ce5eaaa54ebea061dd5797f89ae2c37c The tree after that commit is entirely based on gcc5. In order to do a test with gcc4.9, I reverted: https://github.com/triton/nixpkgs/commit/8ccc1f121f379f4d66ce0a66f581c49d25fb4e15#diff-d7222640d82ff920625e9311d05a0137 and then built two images, one entirely based on gcc4.9

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > In C, dunno, but in LLVM, it means they aren't readonly :) In that case, -functionattrs needs to be fixed: define void @infloop() { entry: br label %l l: br label %l } == opt -functionattrs ==> ; Function Attrs: readnone define void @infloop() #0 { entry: br label %l l:

On 07/11/15 19:38, Ady via Syslinux wrote: > >> >> Just a heads up that syslinux is broken in the current Ubuntu, syslinux >> just shows "Boot error". Downgrading to syslinux from 15.04 works perfectly. >> >> Ubuntu bug is here: >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/usb-creator/+bug/1499746 >> >> This is mostly in case anyone

Hi Martin, The key is available on the keys.gnupg.net key server. I'm also attaching it to this email for convenience. Would posting it on the release page really help? The user would still need to trust the page to trust the key. Thanks, Hans On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Richtarsky, Martin <martin.richtarsky at sap.com> wrote: > Hi Hans, > > I want to verify the

Daniel, Note the openmp library only has cmake build machinery preventing autoconf-based builds. Jack On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'll do Mips as usual. Are we going to do an autoconf-based build for LLVM 3.7? If so, I might try Mips64 packages too. > >> -----Original

Btw, here is another interesting paper about post-dominators and control dependence: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cbb2/9a0e4895025bd9df24f9263217df12f1ed1e.pdf I think a great outcome of your internship would be some precise documentation regarding the guarantees the LLVM dominators give -- possibly also considering classic and weak control dependence and the difference between