similar to: [3.9 Release] Release plan and call for testers

Dear everyone, There's still plenty of time left, but I'd like to get the schedule set before folks start disappearing for the holidays. Note that this release will also switch us to the new versioning scheme where the major version is incremented for each major release (i.e., when the 4.0 branch is created, trunk will become 5.0). If you'd like to help providing binaries and

Thanks! Can you post the sha1's for the files you uploaded? Windows and Mac look good. Uploaded: ca26fbfabb54ac1f70776ab3a5503313ec518f18 clang+llvm-3.9.0-rc2-x86_64-apple-darwin.tar.xz 26d616e1355dc0802f90babbd5ea0b72abc0c0bb LLVM-3.9.0-rc2-win32.exe 42363aeaff395d442f418d77b542a088b5b0658b LLVM-3.9.0-rc2-win64.exe Thanks, Hans On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Diana Picus <diana.picus

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Richard Smith via lldb-dev <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> If 4 seems too confusing, and 40 seems too extreme, how about 10. >> Seriously. It seems exactly as good as any other integer to start counting >> rationally, and won't confuse people by looking like a 4.0 release. > > > I think going to 10 or 40 is likely to be

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:38 PM Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev < lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> That's what concerns me about going to the scheme Richard and Rafael >

On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > That's what concerns me about going to the scheme Richard and Rafael > suggested, of bumping the major version each time: we'd release 4.0, > and would Tom's dot-release then be 4.1? That would be confusing to > those who are used to our current scheme. Chris suggested going

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

It's a test for the new interceptor for prlimit. It could be disabled with __GLIBC_PREREQ for 2.13+. On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:16 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > +Evgenii for msan. > > I suspect the community simply doesn't keep track of what glibc > version is required :-/ > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at

When I tested rc1 I found that some of the test suite wouldn't build on SLES11.3 as a consequence of changes to the tests. At least some of the msan tests have been changed leverage features of glibc newer than is available on this platform. I asked about a minimum-required glibc but didn't hear back. Is the minimum required glibc for 3.9 different from 3.8? When I tried rc1 on

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> That's what concerns me about going to the scheme Richard and Rafael >> suggested, of bumping the major version each time: we'd release 4.0, >> and would Tom's dot-release then be

On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Dimitry Andric <dimitry at andric.com> wrote: > On 05 Dec 2016, at 19:26, Hans Wennborg via Openmp-dev <openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> There's still plenty of time left, but I'd like to get the schedule >> set before folks start disappearing for the holidays. >> >> Note that this release will also

Hello everyone, Please let me know if you'd like to help providing binaries and testing for your favourite platform. If you were a tester on the previous release, I've bcc'd you on this email. I propose this schedule for the 3.7 release: - 14 July 2015: Create the release branch. - 14 July -- 21 July: Testing Phase I. RC1 binaries are built and tested. - 22 July -- 29 July: Fix

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:38 PM Hans Wennborg via lldb-dev > <lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev >> > <llvm-dev at

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:03 PM Hal Finkel via lldb-dev < lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Hans Wennborg via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "LLDB Dev" <lldb-dev at

Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate issue, and to make sure people see it. If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and I've seen folks being equally surprised by both. Brain-dump so far: - After LLVM 1.9 came 2.0, and after

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 10:01 AM Xinliang David Li via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I also believe this is the simplest versioning scheme*. It eliminates all >> future debates on this topic (e.g, when to bump major version etc) and >>

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate > issue, and to make sure people see it. > > If you have opinions on this, please chime in. I'd like to collect as > many arguments here as possible to make a good decision. The main > contestants are 4.0 and 3.10, and

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Mehdi Amini via lldb-dev < lldb-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Jun 13, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > > > > Breaking this out into a separate thread since it's kind of a separate > > issue, and to make sure people see it. > > Thanks! > > > > > If you have

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >>> Eh, if we're switching to a completely unrelated versioning scheme, it >>> doesn't seem completely unreasonable. >>> >>> We could also count how many time-based releases we have had

On Jun 27, 2016, at 4:57 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: >> Eh, if we're switching to a completely unrelated versioning scheme, it >> doesn't seem completely unreasonable. >> >> We could also count how many time-based releases we have had and use that... >> >> :: shrug :: >> >> I think counting from 4 or counting from

Source and binaries for LLVM-3.9.0-rc1 are now available at http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.9.0/#rc1 Please try it out, run tests, build your favourite projects, and *file bugs* about anything that doesn't work and needs to be fixed for the release. Please CC me on any findings. Thanks, Hans