similar to: 3.7.1 release cancelled?

Maybe it's just the holidays... AFAIK, all the packages were tested and uploaded. On 29 December 2015 at 22:44, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Got to admit, I'm curious too. I have finished migrating to the v3.7.1-final tags, and I'm waiting for the green light :-) > > MartinO > > -----Original Message----- >

I am stuck trying to adapt my out-of-target implementation to build on SVN head (actually the v3.8 branch, rev #257626). This is currently working on the v3.7.1 sources, but the changes to 'llvm::ScheduleDAGInstrs' have me stumped as to how to revise my implementation to track the changes to this class. Our 'SHAVEAsmScheduler' derives from 'ScheduleDAGInstrs' and uses

If you are on glibc-2.24, did you patch it with the fix 24e2b1cede1952d7d4411a3cafd25dd8593dab9f that revert commits 80f87443eed17838fe453f1f5406ccf5d3698c25 and a824d609581d5ee7544aabcbbc70e8da44b2b5b6? I had to do that since it broke go, gcc, and clang address sanitizers without the patch. On 9/12/16, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 11 September

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:

Hi Tom, I followed a bit the mailing-list but still see no LLVM v3.7.1 tarballs. Can you pleas take care of this? In case of that i386 breakage do a new v3.7.2 release, please. Not sure if this has impact on x86_64 (AMD64)? Thanks. Regards, - Sedat - [1] https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=25920

Hello, The llvm.org web site says the release would be in mid-june. There was a message posted to the dev list that 3.8.1 was tagged. Then there was another message that said essentially "don't make your own tarballs - wait for release tarballs". I have two questions: 1. If the 3.8.1 tag does not represent what will be the tarball contents, will the tag be moved when the

Yes, it looks like passing ‘EnableVec’ and ‘EnableSLPVec’ to ‘Args.hasFlag’ should be replaced with ‘false’ and then it has the expected behaviour. MartinO From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Martin J. O'Riordan via cfe-dev Sent: 01 March 2018 18:02 To: 'Richard Smith' <richard at metafoo.co.uk> Cc: 'Clang Dev'

Hi Martin, On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 14:10, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > $ git branch --list > * master > martino By default "git branch" only lists local branches. "git branch -a" will list all of them, including (for me) "remotes/origin/release_70". If you just type "git checkout release_70" git will

Thanks Tim, Sometimes my hacks last longer than I want as it isn't always apparent how I can implement it properly. At the moment I am looking at changes I need to 'MachineBasicBlock::ReplaceUsesOfBlockWith'. It is most likely that I need to handle the issue in a different way, but the change I need works here for my target for the time being, but breaks X86 which I also build for

There's always the hypothetical template<typename T> llvm::Triple giveMeATripleDamnYou(const T &); Just keep adding implementations until you stop needing to. ;-) Cheers. Tim. On 1 January 2018 at 17:00, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > Thanks Tim, > > Sometimes my hacks last longer than I want as it isn't always apparent how I can

Hi David, When I use CMake to configure, ‘zlib’ and its header are detected - I build on CentOS 6.5 or CentOS 7. Since I run CMake from the command-line, I tried added ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=0’ and ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=1’ (using ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=ON’ does not seem to work). Both ‘clang’ and ‘llvm-profdata’ (and all other tools and utilities) are configured and built together, in any event,

Hello testers, 5.0.0-rc4 was just tagged. There were very few changes after rc3, and if nothing unexpected comes up, this is what the final release will look like. Please test and let me know if there are any issues. Cheers, Hans

Yep, done that already, but it is not at all a good fit when the device is inside a drone flying around ;-) What we do have, is a fake file-system that keeps everything in memory, and after the profiling is completed we offload it for analysis. I guess I was hoping that there would be a more robust system agnostic implementation. Use of ‘mmap’ is similarly constraining. MartinO

Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that use 'ReplaceNode/SelectCode' and return 'void', but what about the places where I currently call 'Select(N)' directly?

Thanks :) From: 陳韋任 [mailto:chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw] Sent: 14 April 2017 12:53 To: Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Options for timing passes in LLVM? Refer to `llc` document [1], it would be `--time-passes`. [1] http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llc.html HTH,

This is a pretty trivial question, but why are triple-slash comments ('///') sometime used instead of double-slash comments ('//'). I'm sure that there is a good reason and a convention involved, but I do not know what it is. Thanks, MartinO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout 'Select*' functions returning the 'SDNode*' result, maybe I should be calling: ReplaceNode(N, newValue); return; or: SelectCode(N); return; Perhaps? MartinO From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com] Sent: 28 June 2016 16:49 To: 'LLVM Developers'

We discovered what is happening. SDAGCombiner essentially looks at various combinations of nodes to do with vectors, and when it can, it creates a vector shuffle. The problem is, that our vector shuffle lowering builds new trees with vector element, or vector sub-vector insert sequences. The generic DAGCombiner, reconstructs these into a new shuffle, and so the loop continues - we reduce it,

Are there any updates on when LLVM v4.0 is to be released? Just curious, MartinO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170301/0811ce97/attachment.html>

We'll be doing something similar for our OpenVMS port.  Right now I'm using "AsmStreamer->GetCommentOS()" and writing to the stream at the assembler level but that gets aligned on a right-side column (the column is hardcoded) and you have to be in verbose mode.  So if you come up with something or have a quick design, post it so perhaps we can leverage each other's work.