similar to: [PSA] minimum toolchain update completed

At Microsoft, we believe that we gain a competitive advantage by making the Visual Studio versioning story as complicated as possible. To wit: The compiler in the first VS 2015 release was version 19.00. For each update/hotfix release, we bumped that version by .01. When VS 2017 was released, we decided to keep the major compiler version the same to signify backwards-binary-compatibility with the

Indeed this has finally stuck, with just clang-with-lto-ubuntu broken at the moment. I’m inclined to leave it checked in, and try to get it into the LLVM 8 branch as well. > On Feb 7, 2019, at 9:18 AM, paul.robinson at sony.com wrote: > > It seems the CMake changes have landed; but the docs are still a bit out of date? > CMake.html talks about LLVM_FORCE_USE_OLD_TOOLCHAIN but not

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:16 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello folks (except fans of April 1st: this is *not* a joke), > > We discussed migrating past C++11 > <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-January/129452.html> recently > and got consensus. This led us to bump our minimum toolchain requirements >

After a few attempts I think we’re in sight of success: we only have the two following bots remaining with old versions of libstdc++ and new versions of clang: polly-amd64-linux polly-arm-linux Once fixed the toolchain bump should stick. > On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:07 PM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:03 PM,

> On Apr 1, 2019, at 4:10 PM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 1, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 1:16 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 21:05, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The patch is about ready to land, which means any older compiler will soft-error (which you can turn off with LLVM_TEMPORARILY_ALLOW_OLD_TOOLCHAIN). I think we should then cherry-pick the patch to the LLVM 8 branch. > > The last remaining issue are the buildbots. I audited *all* bots in

> On May 6, 2019, at 11:02 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > I know you'll be shocked that we've slipped in our efforts. ;] I don't have a super meaningful ETA update though -- a bunch of unknows have been found and addressed, and again, I feel like we might finish this in roughly a month. > > On the flip side, I do want to clarify the

> On Feb 7, 2019, at 11:01 AM, paul.robinson at sony.com wrote: > > It seems the CMake changes have landed; but the docs are still a bit out of date? > CMake.html talks about LLVM_FORCE_USE_OLD_TOOLCHAIN but not LLVM_TEMPORARILY_ALLOW_OLD_TOOLCHAIN. > > I’m. Not sure how one updates the website’s docs, I had assumed the RST files would automatically get rebuilt and pushed?

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:44 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > Given the small number of library features added by c++14, and given that > they were mostly already implemented in libstdc++ 4.9 [1], I suspect that > moving to c++14 with that stdlib as the minimum probably will not actually > cause friction for developers who are using normal toolchains to be able

I'm happy to announce that Google has migrated to libc++, and we're ready for C++14 and beyond. JF, what are the remaining blockers? /Eric On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 5:12 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On May 6, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:44 PM James Y

+1, thanks again for driving this. On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:57 PM JF Bastien via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The discussion seems to have died down and gotten good consensus. I’ve > therefore create a patch which applies the proposed soft-errors: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D57264 > > > We’ll only migrate to hard-error (and start using new

CCing Zach, who did a lot of the VS 2017 support work (AFAIK), and Reid, who's the general Microsoft support overlord. By full support for VS 2017, do you mean within the IDE itself? I haven't ever used clang from within the VS IDE, so I can't speak to that. All non-IDE stuff should work though, as far as I know. Which compiler options/switches specifically are missing? Filing bugs

Hello fans of the auto keyword! We now have a policy on how LLVM toolchains get updated <https://reviews.llvm.org/rL351765>! Let’s put that policy to good use, and talk about how we’ll move all monorepo projects past C++11. Previous Discussions LLVM dev meeting 2018 BoF "Migrating to C++14, and beyond! <http://llvm.org/devmtg/2018-10/talk-abstracts.html#bof3>" A Short

i want to integrate a C source JITer into my application but the resulting executables are too large is it possible to reduce the resulting libs/exe some way? current VS2017/svn build example: llvm-build\Release\bin\clang-interpreter.exe ~36MB for now (that can change later) - i want to jit simple c-code - no std library or something - x64 only - no deep/full architecture optimization needed -

my build environment: Win7 x64 VStudio 2017 Community Edition 15.8.4 (latest) CMake 3.12.1 (x86) git 2.19.0 (latest, x64) Python 2.7.2 (x86) my build steps: open VS2017 x64 developer command prompt cd D:\projects\fun\jit_tests mkdir llvm cd llvm git clone https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm mkdir llvm-build cd llvm-build cmake -G "Visual Studio 15 2017 Win64" -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON

Hello The page https://networkupstools.org/ddl/Liebert/PSA_1500.html don't contain all information about UPS series PSA. First, the variable "*device.serial*" is dummy, it is always empty , and "*ups.serial*" also always empty. Second, configuration file for the all UPS "PSA" contain these lines: [PSA] ??? driver = "usbhid-ups" ?? ?port =

Likely because 2.6.3 is not a current release. 2.7.2 (or 3?) is rhe current version, and it makes little sense to backport changes. Nut is a trivial compile . . . 'Use the source, Luke . . .' - Tim On October 17, 2014 6:05:35 PM CDT, Derek Harding <derek at lagham.org.uk> wrote: >Hi, > >Back in 2011, it was reported that Liebert PSA devices persist in >reporting OB

[FAQ on USB-connected UPSes] > Remember: this is brand new *experimental* software and is probably > very broken. Do us a favor and report successes or failures to > the mailing lists. No problem ... : UPS: Liebert PowerSure PSA 500 NUT: Version 2.0.2 Kernel: 2.6.11.5, with CONFIG_USB_HID, CONFIG_USB_HIDINPUT, and CONFIG_USB_HIDDEV compiled in (statically)

Hi, Back in 2011, it was reported that Liebert PSA devices persist in reporting OB (On Battery) when using usbhid-ups regardless of the actual state. Pier Paolo did some work (2011) which reportedly solved the issue. However, that doesn't seem to have reached mainstream and I now face the same problem. I'm using NUT 2.6.3 with a new Liebert PSA 1500Va that only ever reports OB and

Hello, Thank you very much for quick response. I need only xapian-core. As I wrote on my case compilation with Visual Studio 2015 successful, just I have runtime errors, while the same code on LINUX runs fine. I'll try the hints from (https://trac.xapian.org/browser/git/xapian-core/INSTALL?rev=RELEASE/1.4#L54) and maybe to migrate my project to VS2017 and test it again. If I understand