similar to: Removing old makefiles before 3.8 branching

Any chance I could beg a couple of week extension on the removal? We're tracking ToT and ran into some minor snags getting switched over to cmake. Having an extra couple of weeks would be really useful. Philip On 01/07/2016 10:54 AM, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev wrote: > They're deprecated in 3.8. Chris and I are making plans for when > (after branch) the removal happens. >

2017-04-29 0:49 GMT+02:00 Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hi! > > I encounter problem with Polly build (in-tree, libraries are linked > statically). It appeared ~ 2 days agor for first time. > > include/llvm/IR/Attributes.h:73:14: fatal error: > 'llvm/IR/Attributes.gen' file not found > #include

2017-05-02 0:50 GMT+02:00 Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: >> 2017-05-01 20:16 GMT+02:00 Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >>> Hi, Hongbin! >>> >>> On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Hongbin Zheng

Hi! I encounter problem with Polly build (in-tree, libraries are linked statically). It appeared ~ 2 days agor for first time. include/llvm/IR/Attributes.h:73:14: fatal error: 'llvm/IR/Attributes.gen' file not found #include "llvm/IR/Attributes.gen" It seems that dependencies on IR are not set properly. Eugene.

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 4:50 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 04:30:01PM -0700, Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev wrote: >> What should be used for type declarations: typedef or using? typedef >> is there because of historical reasons, but LLVM code based is C++11 >> now. >> >> LLVM Coding

2017-05-01 20:16 GMT+02:00 Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hi, Hongbin! > > On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eugene, >> >> It is strange, I also do a clean build with CMake+make with r301734 and it >> is ok. Could you provide more details? >> >> Thanks >>

Hi! What should be used for type declarations: typedef or using? typedef is there because of historical reasons, but LLVM code based is C++11 now. LLVM Coding Standards are not clear on this matter. Eugene. Clang-tidy has modernize-use-using, but fix-it functionality is not perfect (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28334).

Hi! compiler-rt's CMakeLists.txt still contains tweaks for CMake version 2.8. Pre-2.8.12 are definitely irrelevant for CMake 3.4.3, but may be post-2.8.12 tweaks are irrelevant too? Eugene.

Hi! There is surge of spam bug reports with support phone numbers of various companies. I remember couple of such reports made ~ 2-3 weeks ago. I think will be good idea to block IP-addresses or their range, if Bugzilla support this, since a-mails are different. Eugene.

Hi! There are a lot of accepted but not closed revisions in Differential. Many of them were actually committed, but without Differential revision link or when it was specified in wrong way. I think will be good idea to create script which will match committed revisions with those in Differential: file list should be same and hashes of changed line could be calculated for each file. In case of

Hi Eugene, It is strange, I also do a clean build with CMake+make with r301734 and it is ok. Could you provide more details? Thanks Hongbin On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Eugene Zelenko via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, Michael! > > On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Michael Kruse <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> > wrote: > > 2017-04-29 0:49

Hi! Company behind PVS-Studio analyzed relatively recent version of LLVM and some results are reported in http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0446/. Eugene.

Hi! There were several new spam entries in Bugizlla, created from previously created accounts. I think will be good idea to delete them as well as block spammers accounts : Report IDs: 30192, 30191, 30187, 30186, 30185, 30182, 28766, 28717, 28715, 28714. Eugene.

Hi! This example currently uses pthread.h, but will be good idea to convert it to C++11 thread and synchronization objects. I think will be good idea if person who knows LLVM and C++1 better then me will take care about conversion. Eugene.

Now that 3.8 is imminently branching with the newly deprecated autoconf I think it is time to propose a process and timeline for removing autoconf support from trunk. At this point I believe there should be no users of autoconf for Clang and LLVM that are not supported by CMake, so I would like to propose dropping autoconf support from the cfe and llvm repositories on January 26th (two weeks from

Hello. I have a crash of lldb-3.8 installed for Ubuntu 15.04 from here http://llvm.org/apt/ I want to debug it using gdb by myself but I can't get symbols. Any suggestions on how can I get it? -- Eugene

> On Jan 12, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > Sounds like a plan. > > Should we leave behind a simple ./configure script that checks for cmake, and if present, runs something like 'cmake -G"Unix Makefiles" .'? I think it's nice if the "standard" Unix way of building with "./configure && make"

I found use old BUILD_OBJ_ROOT/BUILD_SRC_ROOT in comment in llvm/Makefile.common and in llvm/projects/Stacker/test/Makefile code. I update it to PROJ_* in attached patches. Vladimir -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Makefile.common.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1081 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hi all! I tried to perform Shapiro-Wilk test for my sample of 243 values. > Us [1] -10.4 -13.1 -12.2 38.1 -18.8 -13.3 -11.7 29.3 49.7 6.8 12.7 16.3 [13] 5.8 -0.7 -29.4 4.1 38.8 -1.4 8.8 15.6 32.9 -5.3 19.1 35.8 [25] 4.0 -1.5 0.6 -4.2 -10.0 -4.0 1.1 48.9 -21.0 -5.3 5.8 -10.8 [37] 21.9 8.2 -3.2 -3.9 -2.3 12.6 -4.7 -8.0 11.8 27.4 -9.5 -20.8 [49]

Tobias, My hope is that now is the time when owners of bots using autoconf will be migrating them to CMake, however I don’t expect that all the autoconf bots need to be migrated. My strong suspicion is that many of the autoconf bots that are remaining have CMake-equivolent bots already, so they can just be deactivated. -Chris > On Jan 14, 2016, at 6:06 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at