similar to: 3.7.1 Release Update - Stable patches deadeline extended to November 9 - testers needed

On 18 November 2015 at 01:09, Brian Cain via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Tom, I tried building 3.7.0 for SuSE Linux Enterprise 11SP3. It failed to > build some specific test cases for lack of specific (new) pthread function > declarations. Assuming the problem is that the glibc is too old to be > supported by clang/llvm, can I build a 3.7.1 release against musl

Hi, I've tagged the final version of 3.7.1. There is no difference from 3.7.1-rc2, so testers just need to build the packages no testing is required. -Tom

Hi, There was one problem in -rc1, so we had to do another release candidate. -rc2 has now been tagged and is ready for testing. -Tom

Hi, I have just tagged 3.7.1-rc1, so it is ready for testing. As a reminder, when doing regression testing, use the 3.7.0 release as your baseline. Thanks, Tom

Hi, It's about time to start thinking about the 3.8.1 release. Here is a proposed release schedule: May 25 - Deadline to request a change be merged to the 3.8 branch. June 1 - Deadline to merge changes to the 3.8 branch. June 1 - 3.8.1-rc1 June 8 - 3.8.1-rc2 (if necessary) June 15 - 3.8.1 Release If you want a patch included in the 3.8.1 release, send an email to llvm-commits with the

John removed the assertion in his major alignment tracking patch. I manually did that on the branch in r253380. On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have just tagged 3.7.1-rc1, so it is ready for testing. As a > > reminder,

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 05:32:17AM +0000, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 8:15 PM Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 27, 2015, at 8:10 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > I would like to get your opinion on merging r242372 > > >

We covered this particular patch a bit at the C API BoF at the conference, and I think the general opinion is that this was just an unintentional bug and that fixing it is in 3.7.1 is the best solution forward. I'll send out more on the C API BoF as I get out from under a pile of email. -eric On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:07 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > We knew this

Hi, A few months ago, I mentioned I was interested in helping to make dot releases for LLVM 3.3. Now that 3.3 has been released, I would like to kick off the process of collecting bug fixes and merging them into the 3.3 branch. I reviewed the previous discussion about dot releases: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-April/060821.html and I've come up with the following dot

Hmm, the clang+llvm-3.7.1-x86_64-sles11.3-linux-gnu.tar.xz tarball I uploaded doesn't seem to have made it on to this releases dir. I'm still a bit new to the process, is there a step that I skipped? On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Sedat Dilek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote:

> Polly fails on mips, s390x & powerpc (plenty of errors + a timeout: > http://paste.debian.net/343829/ ) Are the mips failures regressions? I haven't started building/testing polly yet so I don't know the current state of mips support for it. > -----Original Message----- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > Sylvestre Ledru via

Hi, I just tagged 3.9.1-rc2, so testing can begin. There was a bug found in -rc1 before I could send out a release announcement, so I decided to merge the fix and tag -rc2 to save some testing cycles. We can always use more testers, so if you are interested in helping, let me know. Thanks, Tom

I'm a little vary of adding more fields, because I think we already have lots of fields that are never used. Having said that, your suggestions seem reasonable, and it would be cool if we could create tools to automate the release process a bit more based on this. On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Ping. > > On

Will the PR's marked as blockers of PR36649 be merged in or do we need to do something specific? On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:28 AM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I've just tagged the 6.0.1-rc1 release. Testers may begin testing and > uploading > binaries. Also, any tester who has not tested 5.0.2-rc1 and would like to >

Hi, The only regression in 3.6.1 -rc1 was on MIPS and it has been confirmed fixed, so I have now tagged 3.6.1 -final. Testers can start building and uploading the final binaries. Thanks, Tom

Hi, I would like to nominate Martin Storsjö as code owner for MinGW changes in LLVM. -Tom

Hi, I have just tagged 3.6.2-rc1, so testing can begin. We can always use more testers, so if you are interested in testing, let me know. -Tom

Hi, I would like to begin the 3.4.2 release process for LLVM. There have been two issues identified in 3.4.1, which there is interest in having fixed in a 3.4.x release: 1. Build failure with gcc 4.9 (This is not a regression, 3.4 also fails to build with gcc 4.9). 2. Accidental change of libLLVM's DT_SONAME from libLLVM-3.4 libLLVM-3.4.1.so I will also accept any other bug-fixes that

Hi, I have tagged 3.6.2-final, so testers can start building and uploading -final binaries. There was only one change between 3.6.2-rc1 and 3.6.2-final, which was a patch to the R600 backend to fix the build with VS2012. Running a full regression suite is probably not necessary, but you still can if you want to be extra careful. -Tom

Hi, Just a reminder that testing for 3.5.2 will begin on Monday, Mar 16. If you have any patches you want merged please send an email to the relevant commits list and cc me and the code owner. If you have already done this and are waiting for a response, please ping the thread. As always we need testers, so let me know if you want to help with testing. Thanks, Tom