similar to: Should functions returning bool return true or false on success?

What do you see as the pros and cons of making it a stable target? Does anyone else have any concerns about doing so? -Chris > On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +better dylanmckay address > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:58 AM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org <mailto:thakis at chromium.org>> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi Nico, >> >> Sorry for the delay, I've been OOO. The llvm-cov bot should produce >> reports for llvm-undname starting today. >>

Hi, I got a forced update when pulling today. If I merge master to a local branch, I get a bunch of add/add conflicts. This same commit exists under several hashes: https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-20170507/commit/687841777ef505 https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-20170507/commit/74725885552 Did someone push -f to the monorepo after doing branch surgery? Maybe there was a

Hey Nico, I'm actually not sure where the configurations for that bot are stored. I suspect Duncan may have a better idea. I'm reasonably certain that the missing +x is just an oversight. -Chris > On May 30, 2019, at 6:24 PM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Vedant or Chris: Ping :) > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:56 AM Nico Weber

Hi, llvmbb's job is to inform people of build breaks. However, it seems to trigger for a big list of bots, and at least one of them seems to always be broken, and the broken bots tend to have cycle times of several hours. So if you're on IRC and you commit something, you get pinged by llvmbb for hours afterwards. Does anyone think llvmbb is useful? The best thing about llvmbb I've

Hi, There was a thread a few days ago about the expectations for experimental targets. At the moment, the only experimental target is AVR. It's been in the tree for a long time now, and generally seems well-behaved. Should we just make it a normal target? Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I don't see how the policy of supporting 2 versions is related to that difficulty though. Whether we support 1 versions or 2 versions, 1 version is still going to be deprecated every time a new version is released. So this burden on upgrading buildbots doesn't seem to be much different. As long as chromium compiler version is not tied to llvm compiler version (and if it did, that would be

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:11 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Nico Weber via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons. > > Do you mind elaborating on those reasons? Off the top of my head, clang-cl couldn't handle the code

I frequently see mention of how upgrading is problematic, is there anyone here for whom upgrading msvc versions is problematic? It seems like we keep talking in hypotheticals, but I'd like to hear from someone for whom it is *actually* a problem, and why. Vs community is permissive enough now that licensing isn't an issue. And every time this comes up it seems like we're saying

Probably this job: lab.llvm.org:8080/green/job/clang-stage2-coverage-R/ 💬 from 📱 > On May 31, 2019, at 3:35 PM, Duncan Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > +Chris Matthews, do you know where the configs are stored for this? > >> On 2019 May 31, at 12:39, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: >> >> Hey Nico, >> >> I'm

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:42 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> llvmbb's job is to inform people of build breaks. However, it seems to >> trigger for a big list of bots, and at least one of them seems to always be >>

As mentioned upthread, we're still on update 2 for various reasons. On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Reid, first off thanks *very* much for all your help fixing > 2013-related problems. We really appreciate it. > > > > Let me propose a target date of September 15 for advancing the minimum MS > compiler to

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Nico, > > Sorry for the delay, I've been OOO. The llvm-cov bot should produce > reports for llvm-undname starting today. > Thanks! It looks like http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/index.html now has an "llvm-undname" entry, but

Thanks for the reply. Typing in my username and clicking "Forgot password?" got me a link I could use to log in. It'd still be good if federated login worked again. Is there an upstream issue for this? On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:09 PM Alex Brachet-Mialot < alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes this was broken for me too, there was another post on here about this

I guess what I'm getting at, is why do we even need to support 2 toolchains with LLVM *at all*? Why can't we just always upgrade to the newest one unless there are serious issues with it? There used to be two reasons that I'm aware of: 1) Licensing. Community used to be Express, and Express used to be limited in functionality. But this is no longer the case. Community is fine for

Hi Vedant and Chris, is the config for http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/index.html public somewhere? If so, where? (I looked in zorg but didn't find it.) If not, could you add "llvm-undname" to the list of binaries passed to llvm/utils/prepare-code-coverage-artifact.py so that llvm/lib/Demangle/MicrosoftDemangle.cpp (and friends) show up? (If the config is public,

Since there's no "[2663/3121] " line between the two messages, the two lines are from the same link.exe invocation. I don't know why link.exe thinks it needs to print this line twice, ninja doesn't have anything to do with it. On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:57 PM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > I'm more concerned about seeing the message come out twice, which

http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64be-linux-multistage/builds/60 probably didn't use OS X? On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:20 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Can we XFAIL it only on OSX/Darwin & file a bug? It sounds like the issue > may be restricted to that platform & there's incomplete (possibly ongoing) > investigation? That way we