similar to: Permissions for llvm-mirror - Setting up Libc++ Appveyor builders

What would be the status of these buildbots? Is it for your private usage? Otherwise having “project' bots” using a non-official mirror may sound like a strange situation to me. — Mehdi > On Apr 19, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Eric Fiselier via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Adding cfe-dev list... > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 12:39 AM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > What would be the status of these buildbots? Is it for your private usage? > > I intend for them to be public Windows buildbots for libc++. I’m not sure

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Apr 20, 2017, at 12:39 AM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca <mailto:eric at efcs.ca>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Apr 20, 2017, at 12:30 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca <mailto:eric at efcs.ca>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr

Hi, Fragmentation of the bots is not ideal. While I totally understand Eric's reasoning for doing so, and am delighted to see another Windows bot helping to ensure quality code, I think this is a bit of a slippery slope. We already have the main Buildbots, Green Dragon, Chapuni's Bots, a myriad of private bots and now this new bot. I don't think it is reasonable to ask people to

Hi All, Appveyor is a CI product for Windows. It's free for open source projects on Github. Libc++ has been using it via the llvm-mirror organization on Github [1]. Should we set Appveyor up for the official LLVM Github organization? The motivation for testing libc++ on Windows using Appveyor over Buildbot is that Appveyor allows for a faster development cycle. CI configuration changes are

On Aug 10, 2018, at 9:35 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > > Part of me is still concerned with the future, and the filesystems which are yet to exist. > Me too. But it is best to target modern systems when targeting future systems adds an unnecessary cost. When future systems come into being, it is likely because future hardware is making those future systems

Ping. It's been another week. When are we going to get the docs building and updating again? On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:01 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > Ping. Everything is still broken. > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > >> I don't know if that would make a difference. Whenever a CMake file is

@Tobias The poly docs build step is still failing, but due to a bug in the particular version of Sphinx used by the www-scripts builder. This seems like something best worked around inside poly. The builds take place hourly and their output is reported on the www-scripts at lists.llvm.org mailing list. On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias.grosser at inf.ethz.ch > wrote:

Hi All, I'm working on rewriting libc++'s documentation using Sphinx. Hopefully it will be easier to write and maintain documentation using restructured text and not HTML. What steps do I need to take to get libc++ a Sphinx builder and get the required changes made for libcxx.llvm.org? /Eric

I don't know if that would make a difference. Whenever a CMake file is changed and a build rule is executed CMake is automatically re-run, but the variables in the cache remain. Since certain configuration doesn't re-run once a variable is in the cache, a bad cache variable can break the build until it's manually removed. I believe that's what's happening here. I should

CC Tanya and ping. On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm working on rewriting libc++'s documentation using Sphinx. > Hopefully it will be easier to write and maintain documentation using > restructured text and not HTML. > > What steps do I need to take to get libc++ a Sphinx builder and get > the required

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:02 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > 2. We need to clarify how libstdc++ and libsupc++ can be used as > > libc++'s ABI library and explicitly define the level of support for > > these configurations. Are there any people using this functionality? > > These configurations have been broken for GCC >= 4.9.2 and I haven't

And here we go: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/libcxx-libcxxabi-arm-linux There are only 11 failures, which seem reasonably trivial to fix (missing symbols and asserts). I'll be looking into them, but if you have any clue, tips are welcome! Thanks everyone for the help and support! cheers, --renato

Hi All, Currently libc++ does not list linux as a supported platform. This should change. I think we should be able to list linux (with libc++abi) as a supported configuration. but there are some issues I would like to see resolved first. 1. We should add CMake support for building libc++ against a static libc++abi. If libc++ is linked to a shared libc++abi the resulting library can only be used

Hi Eric, On 20 July 2015 at 10:41, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm working on rewriting libc++'s documentation using Sphinx. > Hopefully it will be easier to write and maintain documentation using > restructured text and not HTML. > > What steps do I need to take to get libc++ a Sphinx builder and get > the required changes made for

Hi Bill, I committed a fix already as r355743 [1], and it fixes `test2` as well. I believe we should merge this into 8.0. /Eric [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/680e865c313a80b6ec329abde61e1f0c66bdc103 On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:46 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > The attached patch may help matters, though it now fails because

On 3/6/2016 1:38 AM, Eric Fiselier wrote: > I recognize these failures, and I think they should be fixed when > building with clang 3.8. IIRC the cause of the errors is that > libc++abi.so linked to the wrong unwinding libraries pre-3.8. I believe > the relevant commit is r255559 (http://reviews.llvm.org/rL255559). > > PS. You should use -DLLVM_ENABLE_LIBCXX=ON instead of >

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Brian Cain via cfe-dev < >> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 11SP3 x86_64 >>> >>> Looks like I

Hi all, I would really like to get a patch into 3.6 for libc++. The patch renames template parameters with the names '_A' and '_V' to longer names. '_A' is frequently defined in ctypes.h and that could cause libc++ to not compile. I'm fairly sure the code was added between 3.5 and 3.6 so that would make this a regression. The patch can be found here: