similar to: docs-llvm-html broken?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM Jonas Devlieghere <jonas at devlieghere.com> wrote: > Hi Kostya, > > I remember seeing this in the past. IIRC it was sufficient to install > recommonmark with `pip install recommonmark`. > installing this on my machine won't help the bots that build the docs, right? > > Cheers, > Jonas > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:17 AM

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:05 AM Jonas Devlieghere via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:54 AM Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM Jonas Devlieghere <jonas at devlieghere.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Kostya, >>> >>> I remember

Hi, Thanks for bringing this up. I am reluctant to update to recommonmark >= 0.4.0, because it is not available in any Ubuntu version, Debian Testing or even Debian Unstable. While we could do something custom on the buildbot, I think it would be a disservice for our users to use a library that is not packaged in modern operating systems yet. Dmitri

Hi, TL;DR - We should update the bot(s) responsible for building the LLVM documentation so that they use recommonmark 0.5.0, and apply https://reviews.llvm.org/D63211. Full context: I recently started trying to build the sphinx docs. However, a change by Jordan (r363100) resulted in me no longer being able to build them, even though the build bots were green and he could build them himself.

I think this is fine, except that it stops at the point where things actually start to get interesting and tricky. How will you actually handle the flow of values from the callbr into the error blocks? A callbr can specify requirements on where its outputs live. So, what if two callbr, in different branches of code, specify _different_ constraints for the same output, and list the same block as a

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:35 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:00 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> >>> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:25 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On 7/1/19 1:38 PM, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:35 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:44 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:29 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> > wrote: > >> I think this is fine, except that it stops at the point where things >> actually start to get interesting and tricky. >> >> How will you actually handle the flow of values from the callbr

On 6/28/19 5:35 PM, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com<mailto:isanbard at gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com<mailto:jyknight at google.com>> wrote: On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:00 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com<mailto:isanbard at

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:00 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:44 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:29 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> >>> wrote:

Hi I am trying to build  the documentation and view it as html. When I ran the `make docs-llvm-html` target but ran into this below issue. Has anyone faced this issue? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- % make

+ CBL mailing list On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:08 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > [Adding the correct cfe-dev mailing list address.] > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a >> document describing how to expand clang's

[Adding the correct cfe-dev mailing list address.] On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a > document describing how to expand clang's implementation of ASM goto to > support output constraints. The work *should* be straight-forward, but as > always will need to

What about SelectionDAG representation? Currently we expand callbr to INLINEASM_BR and BR. Both of which are terminators. But in order to support outputs we would need to put CopyFromReg nodes between them. ~Craig On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:18 PM Nick Desaulniers via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > + CBL mailing list > > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:08 AM Bill

I've been out of the loop for awhile. Is there an email thread about the "removing terminators as a thing" concept? On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 10:13 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org wrote: > FWIW, I’m generally supporting of this direction, and would love to see > asm goto support. > > Could you compare and contrast asmbr to a couple other

(and FWIW, I'm currently trying to finish the patch that makes this a reality... mostly hard because it has to unwind a loooot of complexity we've built up due to not having this) On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM Jeremy Lakeman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123407.html > > TLDR; CallInst & InvokeInst

There's been some desire recently to start writing documentation in Markdown instead of reStructuredText. I put up a [patch]( https://reviews.llvm.org/D44910) for that, but we should figure out a policy on how we want our documentation written first. The desire to use Markdown comes mostly from it being simpler, and having much wider adoption. It does lack some of the feature that

If Sphinx consumes Markdown, great, let's do it. We can migrate docs from .rst to .md easily over time. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:26 PM Michael Spencer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > There's been some desire recently to start writing documentation in > Markdown instead of reStructuredText. I put up a [patch]( > https://reviews.llvm.org/D44910) for

Agreed.  Markdown is also nice for the github integration.  It might make some of our docs more easily discoverable.  (and maybe editable someday) On 03/29/2018 01:34 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev wrote: > If Sphinx consumes Markdown, great, let's do it. > > We can migrate docs from .rst to .md easily over time. > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:26 PM Michael Spencer via

Last night, I triggered a buildbot error after my most recent commit. That one was totally on me as the warning did pop up while generating the docs site locally using the sphinx-build command (confirmed this afternoon). I just checked in a commit to resolve the error but now it appears I've triggered a different buildbot error? This error did not come up when I built the site locally to test