similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: I plan to remove the autoconf and Makefile build of LLD

I have fixed the issue locally, but been out of the office - can apply the fix - or just maintain the makefiles locally if no-one else really wants them, fine with whatever the community decision is. Iain On 11 Mar 2015, at 22:11, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I'd agree, but the Makefiles were added just 9 months ago. I don't know if there's a real need of any kind. Added Iain who added

I fixed the immediate problem - please let me know when you are going to break my build so I can switch to maintaining it locally. thanks Iain ] On 13 Mar 2015, at 17:04, Rui Ueyama wrote: > Looks like most developers prefer Makefile removal, and there's no push-back. Let's go ahead and remove them. I'll send a patch. > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Iain Sandoe <iain

Hi Chris, On 14 Mar 2015, at 21:42, Chris Bieneman wrote: > Just out of curiosity. The community generally seems to be moving away from autoconf toward CMake. Is there a reason why you need the autoconf build bad enough to support it out-of-tree? The reasons a short-term and boring engineering/project-related, rather than ideological. We all agree that one well-maintained build system is

Adding +Eric Liu <ioeric at google.com> who helps with Phabricator.... On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 3:15 PM Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Anton Korobeynikov > <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > > Thanks, fixed. > > > > Also, FWIW, phabricator commit mails are broken. Example: > >

On 31 Jan 2014, at 08:12, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > - There is the core runtime library. Historically this was called 'compiler-rt' informally, but perhaps better called 'libclang_rt', which provides the core necessary runtime library facilities to compile C or C++ applications. It's analogous to libgcc but without some of the unwinding code

On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Simon Pilgrim <llvm-dev at redking.me.uk> wrote: > On 24 Nov 2014, at 17:53, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'll be skimming the PRs to see if there are any really critical > regressions, but so far it looks pretty good. > > > > If you are actively disabling the new vector shuffling and have some PR

Wow. Somehow, I forgot about vbroadcast and vpbroadcast. =[ Sorry about that. I'll fix those. On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com > wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > Here is another test. > > When looking at the AVX codegen, I noticed that, when using the new > shuffle lowering, we no longer emit a single vbroadcastss in the case

The script queries **all** issues with specified labels and "notifies" on each of those. While this approach works, I doubt it would scale well if everyone is doing this by hand. OTOH, building a service that does this for everyone might be feasible, albeit non-trivial and it's not clear who should own this. So overall having this supported by GitHub would mean a much better UX...

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote: > To all, I'm moving on and accepting what appears to be the consensus of > the list, for now. > I want to point out something about this direction that hasn't really come up, but I think deserves some better discussion. I don't think it should be the basis of a decision one way or the other,

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:46 PM Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 1, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > *The atom model is not the best model for some architectures * > > > The atom model is a good fit for the llvm compiler model for all > architectures. There is a one-to-one mapping between llvm::GlobalObject >

Chandler, Thanks for the great overview. On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > >> On 30 January 2014 21:50, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >>> >>> I don't see any compelling reason to split the

I've run the SingleSource test suite for core-avx-i and have no failures here so a preprocessed file + commandline would be very useful if this reproduces for you still. On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm having trouble reproducing this. I'm trying to get LNT to actually > run, but manually compiling the given source

Well, it's not really critical for us _now_, because we have not switched to github issues. And I can't really see any possibility of that happening in the short-term, either. Even once we do decide we want to move that way -- which we haven't yet even done -- it'll be a long road to making it happen, and I suspect there's many more critical missing features that we'll

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 1:34 AM Markus Lavin <markus.lavin at ericsson.com> wrote: > To be more specific I am trying to use LVI from inside BasicAA to improve > some cases that turned out to be relevant for our downstream target. > > > > The code is in https://reviews.llvm.org/D55107 and I have problems with a > failing assert in the LazyValueInfoWrapperPass destructor

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com>, "llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Davide Italiano" > <dccitaliano at gmail.com>, "Tim Amini Golling" >

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > 1. Initialisms. It's common in Clang code (also in LLVM?) to use >> initialisms as variable names. This doesn't really seem to work for names >> that start with a lower case letter. >> > > I think wee at least need a good answer to this. > As I really suspect this is

The MBlaze backend seems to be essentially unmaintained since 2011. The maintainer (Wesley Peck who is BCC'ed) seems to have vanished, and in fact all emails to him are bouncing. I propose to remove the MBlaze backend on Friday if none step forward as a maintainer. Currently, folks are having to keep it up to date when changing shared parts of the backend with no help. -Chandler

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > Awesome, thanks for all the information! > > See below: > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:13 AM, Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> You have already mentioned how the new shuffle lowering is missing >> some features; for example, you explicitly

> On Jan 4, 2015, at 4:25 PM, Simon Pilgrim <llvm-dev at redking.me.uk> wrote: > > > On 4 Jan 2015, at 23:30, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Simon Pilgrim <llvm-dev at redking.me.uk <mailto:llvm-dev at redking.me.uk>> wrote: >> On 24 Nov 2014, at 17:53,

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:25 AM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:39 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:34 PM Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com>