similar to: Code Owner for MinGW

On 02/10/2020 01:02 PM, Martin Storsjö wrote: > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev wrote: > >> On 02/06/2020 02:48 PM, Greg Bedwell wrote: >>> Here's a non-MLIR commit that also wasn't sent to any list: >>> b3576f60ebc8f660afad8120a72473be47517573 >>> >>> >>> I don't think that this is the same issue as the

Hi, I would like to nominate Peter Collingbourne as a code owner for libLTO since he has done a lot of work on the new LTO APIs. -Tom

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/26/2017 12:52 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote: >> I'm a little vary of adding more fields, because I think we already >> have lots of fields that are never used. >> > > I'm up for removing unused fields too. Which ones did you have in mind? I think URL, Keywords, Alias, and

On 02/06/2020 02:48 PM, Greg Bedwell wrote: > Here's a non-MLIR commit that also wasn't sent to any list: > b3576f60ebc8f660afad8120a72473be47517573 > > > I don't think that this is the same issue as the mlir commits. This particular one is likely due to the issue of non-ascii characters the commit summary (author/comitter name in this case) causing some sort

Hi, I would like to nominate David Majnemer as the code owner for constant folding: lib/IR/ConstantFold.cpp. He seems to be the most active developer based on the git history. David do you accept? -Tom

I'm a little vary of adding more fields, because I think we already have lots of fields that are never used. Having said that, your suggestions seem reasonable, and it would be cool if we could create tools to automate the release process a bit more based on this. On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Ping. > > On

Hi, I've been going through my queue of candidate patches for the 3.6 branch, and I think the process could be smoother if we had more code owners. So, I'd like to encourage people to nominate themselves or others as code owners for any part of LLVM that doesn't already have one. The responsibilities of a code owner include reviewing patches submitted to llvm-commits and approving

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:59:52AM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: > Tom, code owner nomination. > > Andrey is the most active developer, so I think it makes sense. How > long do we wait to change the file? Is there any process that you'd > like to follow? > I don't think there is a formal process, but usually the file gets updated once Chris approves. -Tom > cheers,

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 09:57:32AM -0400, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:02:21PM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have just tagged the first release candidate for the > > 3.4.1 release, so testers may begin testing. Please refer to > > http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseProcess.html for information on how to > > validate a release.

On 10/09/2019 11:05 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:16 PM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > Hi, > > We're less than 2 weeks away from the developer meeting, so I wanted to > give an update on the GitHub migration and what's (hopefully) going to >

On 01/14/2020 08:59 AM, Russell Gallop wrote: > Hi Tom, Hans, > > I can't see LLVM-9.0.1-win*.exe from Hans on the GitHub release page (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-9.0.1). Is this still in progress? > Hans did you upload these? I don't see them on the server. -Tom > Thanks > Russ > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 20:05, Tom Stellard via

On 01/09/2020 09:11 AM, Brian Cain wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:29 AM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com <mailto:tstellar at redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 01/08/2020 09:24 AM, Brian Cain wrote: > > Tom, the 9.0.1 final binaries didn't (yet?) make it to the github release page https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/releases/tag/llvmorg-9.0.1

Moving this thread to llvmdev. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> Time is running short, but this would be great. The best place to start is to begin decomposing the mega-patch into individual pieces that makes sense. Do you have

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:56:26PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer wrote: > > On 01.11.2012, at 14:44, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > > > Moving this thread to llvmdev. > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > >>>> Hi

On 06/13/2017 07:33 PM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 2017, at 17:23, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com <mailto:tstellar at redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> On 06/12/2017 08:03 PM, Connor Abbott wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com <mailto:tstellar at redhat.com>> wrote: >>>> On

On 01.11.2012, at 14:44, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Moving this thread to llvmdev. > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:09:34PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:35 AM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: >>>> Hi Tom, >>>> >>>> Time is running short, but this would be great. The best place to

Hi Tom, I do not have SVN account, for accessing LLVM. Thanks, Sourabh On Tue 29 Oct, 2019, 9:08 AM Tom Stellard, <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: > On 10/26/2019 03:39 AM, Sourabh Singh Tomar wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I recently requested Chris regarding commit access to LLVM. > > He asked me to wait till the GitHub migration completes and then ask in >

Sorry about the formatting... Anyway, I think there may be a misinterpretation of bound_cntl. My understanding is that: 0 => if the source is invalid or disabled, do not write a result 1 => if the source is invalid or disabled, use a 0 instead So the problematic case is where bound_cntl is 0, not when it is 1. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Stellard [mailto:tstellar at redhat.com]

On 10/16/2019 12:02 PM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:55 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: >> >> On 10/16/2019 07:31 AM, Roman Lebedev wrote: >>> +1, please. >>> >>> Also, putting a tag on the *first* commit in the repo, >>> and doing `git describe --match FIRST_COMMIT_TAG` will be *great*! >>>

+1. And put it in the email (subject?). While it’s possible to derive a count from a hash manually, better to have it in the email in the first place. You can’t rely on order-of-email-delivery to reflect order-of-commit. --paulr From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Shoaib Meenai via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 1:42 AM To: tstellar at redhat.com;