similar to: Suggestion to Stop Cross Posting Discussions

+1 to do something, whether that something is to mail only on llvm-dev, or to move those discussions to a 'community' or 'cross-project' list of some sort. I -am- subscribed to cfe-def and llvm-dev, and as a result, I get most of these messages twice. I also have mail rules to put cfe-dev email in one folder and llvm-dev email in another folder. When both mailing lists are

For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that were organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard such as Library, or Core, or Extensions, etc.. For the most part I think that since the early 1990s when these lists started, the 'all' reflector/distribution-list has worked really well. I still get all the ISO C++ mailings, and the signal

> On Jul 5, 2016, at 4:23 PM, C Bergström via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that were organisational and not technically specific

On 6 Jul 2016, at 05:32, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 5, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> For ISO C++ we long ago created an 'all' list for topics that were organisational and not technically specific to an aspect of the Standard such as

If I'm not mistaken Q clearance would require US citizenship. ‎

On 9 Jul 2016, at 03:55, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I think having yet another mailing list is a dramatically worse solution than simply fixing our mailing list system to allow subscribers to any of the lists post to all of the lists. I believe that allowing cross-posting would only solve half of the problem. We have two issues: - Some

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 1:52 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 6 July 2016 at 09:10, David Chisnall via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 6 Jul 2016, at 05:32, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> +1 for an “llvm-project” list that everyone involved in any llvm subproject is

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 It looks like something, something, something is broken with regards to svn's viewvc linked from the llvm.org front page? Can someone poke an admin about it? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk sean -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQF8BAEBCgBmBQJXF6reXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w

Hi, Since ViewVC has been down for a while, I was wondering if it's possible to change the revision links from lab.llvm.org to point elsewhere. For instance, the Phabricator revision if there is one, or maybe the klaus link. Could this be done? Cheers, Diana On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 4:32 PM, John Criswell via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 4/20/16 12:14 PM, Sean

On 7 July 2016 at 03:39, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Sorry, I meant to say that issues like “move to github” would be on topic for the list. The addition of a new mailing list certainly doesn’t affect how key decisions in the project are made. Perfect! I'm glad everyone is in agreement. I think it makes sense to move those things out of the dev list and to make it

> On Jul 8, 2016, at 9:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:28 AM Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On 7 July 2016 at 03:39, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> > Sorry, I meant to say that issues like “move to github” would be on topic for the

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I wish we could just get the viewvc working or set up some kind of > forwarding from those URLs to something that works. > > There are tons and tons of links pointing to the viewvc which are now > broken, including the archives of all commit emails. I share in that desire; the

All, The server that runs the mailing lists will be down for maintenance starting Friday Dec 18th at 10:30PM PST. I do not expect a long downtime, but please keep this in mind if you see any issues with the lists during this period. I will send an email once I am finished. No other services should be affected. Thanks, Tanya

"If memory serves correctly, ViewVC was intentionally disabled because it was causing some problems on the LLVM server (load problems, I think)." If that is the case, perhaps something as simple as a robots.txt will solve the load problem? On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:26 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I wish we could just get the viewvc

If I am not mistaken, there are two things that are becoming clear: 1. For email, nobody seems to be against Discourse as long as the mailing lists are still a supported way to participate. So this seems non-controversial. 2. For IRC, people seem to be happy with switching to a more modern solution, but Discord is largely disliked by a significant portion of respondents. So perhaps we can focus

On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:58 PM, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/20/16 11:29 PM, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:12 AM, John Criswell via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 6/20/16 9:39 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev wrote: > > Dear Community, > > To improve current interprocedural register

Hi All, We've been working on enhancing LLVM's instrumentation based profiling by adding indirect call target profiling support. Our goal is to add instrumentation around indirect call sites, so that we may track the frequently taken target addresses and their call frequencies. The acquired data has uses in optimization of indirect function call heavy applications. Our initial findings

> On 10/24/14, 8:26 PM, betulb at codeaurora.org wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> We've been working on enhancing LLVM's instrumentation based profiling >> by >> adding indirect call target profiling support. Our goal is to add >> instrumentation around indirect call sites, so that we may track the >> frequently taken target addresses and their call

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 11:12 AM, John Criswell via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 6/20/16 9:39 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev wrote: >> Dear Community, >> >> To improve current interprocedural register allocation (IPRA) , we have planned to set callee saved registers to none for local functions, currently I am doing it in following way:

Hello folks, As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looooooong) series of discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741 code review. The discussion has largely died down for some time, and towards the end there has been pretty wide support for the draft wording we have now. It isn’t