similar to: [7.0.0 Release] The final tag is in

Dear testers, 7.0.0-rc3 was just tagged (from branch revision r341805). No further release candidates are currently planned, so this is a release candidate in the real sense: unless any serious issues surface, this is what the final release will look like. Please run the test script, share your results and upload binaries. Please also take a look at the release notes and other docs; small

Dear testers, The final version of 6.0.0 has just been tagged from the branch after r326550. It has the same contents as -rc3 modulo release notes and one small x86 fix (r326393). Please build the final binaries and upload to the sftp. For those following along: this means llvm-6.0.0 is complete, but it will take a few days to get all the tarballs ready and published on the web page. I will

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Hans, > > I was just trying to push a release note about DWARF v5 support. I did: > git checkout release_70 # in the monorepo > git commit <update to llvm/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst> > git llvm push > but that fails. How do you want to do release notes? I'm not familiar with "git

Hi Hans, > The final version of 7.0.0 has been tagged from the branch at r342370. I'd like to fork from 7.0.0 final but I got confused: The tip of release_70 branch is still r341805, which is identical to rc3. This should be r342370 instead, shouldn't it? Or the final (r342370) does not go into the release branch? Or it just takes some more time? Thanks, Gabor On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at

Dear testers, 7.0.0-rc2 was just tagged (from branch revision r340437). There have been a bunch of merges since rc1, and hopefully many of the issues with the previous candidate are fixed in this one. Please run the test script, share the results, and upload binaries. I will publish source tarballs, docs, and binaries on the web page once they're ready. Thanks, Hans

Hi Hans, Looks ok here. I've uploaded the binaries. SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-mipsel-linux-gnu.tar.xz)= 5ff062f4838ac51a3500383faeb0731440f1c4473bf892258314a49cbaa66e61 SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz)= 39820007ef6b2e3a4d05ec15feb477ce6e4e6e90180d00326e6ab9982ed8fe82 SHA256(clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz)=

Dear testers, 7.0.0-rc1 was just tagged (from the branch at r338847). It's early in the release process, but I'd like to find out what the status is of the branch on our various platforms. Please run the test script, share the results, and upload binaries. Thanks, Hans

Dear testers, My list of blockers is empty, and there were no new problems discovered with rc3, so I have gone ahead and tagged 3.8.0-final [1]. Please build the final binaries and upload to the sftp. For others following along: yes, this means 3.8.0 is complete, but it takes a couple of days to get the source and binary tarballs built. I will send the release announcement when everything's

Uploaded ubuntu, SLES11, SLES12 binaries. 4907dbd37f4e5265a2f1252d9d7b5e5b0a9c0ec1 clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-14.04.tar.xz 360b26fcd9eafe5ca9c4baa89c38339bc587c094 clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-sles11.3.tar.xz ce525cf949ef86409bc3f4f492035225989eecfd clang+llvm-6.0.0-x86_64-linux-sles12.2.tar.xz On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:17 AM, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers < release-testers

It was just brought to my attention that the RPATH configuration isn't uniform among the libraries produced by the release. Some use $ORIGIN../lib/ and others have none. Is this by design? It seems like it might be ideal for all of them to be configured the same way. If that makes sense I'll create a corresponding feature request. $ for f in

Hi everyone, The release branch for 7.0.0 was created off trunk at r338536 earlier today, and the trunk version was subsequently bumped to 8.0.0. Release blockers are tracked by https://llvm.org/PR38406 Please mark any bugs, old or new, that need to be fixed for the release as blocking that. To get a change committed to the branch, first commit it to trunk as usual, and then request it to be

Dear testers, The final version of 3.9.0 was just tagged (from the 3.9 branch at r280312). There were no changes after rc3. This took a little longer than expected, but on the up side that means it's had more time to be tested. Please build the final binaries and upload to the sftp. For others following along: this means 3.9.0 is complete, but it will take a few days to get the tarballs

Isn't libc++.so dependent on libc++abi.so? On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo at hahnjo.de> wrote: > From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime > libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think they don't > have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, so what would be > the advantage of having

Dear testers, 8.0.0-rc5 was just tagged from the release_80 branch at r355909. This is identical to rc4 with the addition of r355743. Hopefully it is the final release candidate, so please give it a good testing. As usual, please run the test script, share your results, and upload binaries. I'll publish source tarballs and docs as soon as possible, and binaries as they become available.

Hello testers, 5.0.0-rc4 was just tagged. There were very few changes after rc3, and if nothing unexpected comes up, this is what the final release will look like. Please test and let me know if there are any issues. Cheers, Hans

Dear testers, 8.0.0-rc3 was just tagged from the release_80 branch at r355015. We're running a little behind schedule now, but I think we're also close to be able to call this done. Please take a close look at this release candidate. Unless anything bad comes up, this is probably very similar to what the final release will look like. Testers, please run the test script, share your

From what I can see all of the libraries without RPATH are runtime libraries that are used by binaries compiled with Clang. I think they don't have a dependency on other libraries in that directory, so what would be the advantage of having RPATH set on them? Regards, Jonas Am 2018-03-05 17:23, schrieb Brian Cain via llvm-dev: > It was just brought to my attention that the RPATH

Dear testers, 6.0.0-rc3 was just tagged, after r325901 on the branch. There are still a few open blockers, but I'm not sure we'll actually end up blocking on all of them. So depending on what comes up, this release candidate is probably pretty close to what the final release will look like (I'm still hoping for more release notes, though). I'm hoping we can get to

Dear testers, 5.0.0-rc3 was just tagged. This is a release candidate in the real sense: if nothing bad comes up in testing, this is what the release is going to look like. Please build, test and upload binaries to the sftp (use the /data/testers-uploads/ directory) and let me know what issues remain. I know we're a little bit behind schedule, but hopefully we can get to 'final'

Dear testers, Release Candidate 3 has just been tagged [1]. Please build, test, and upload to the sftp. If there are no regressions from previous release candidates, this will be the last release candidate before the final release. Release notes can still go into the branch. Thanks again for all your work! Hans [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2016-February/009866.html