similar to: Workflow to commit changes using git alone (?)

Hi Hiroshi, Thanks for that. I find “rebase” difficult to use. Maybe I don’t understand it, but it always causes a lot ‘conflicts’ that are very hard to fix according to my experience. I have another question though. LLVM requires that reviewed patches are pushed as a /single/ commit with a standardised message, particularly specifying the Differential Revision url as part of the commit message.

Hi Mehdi, > On 10 Nov 2019, at 20:27, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > No: the arcanist command does not suffer from the problem I was raising. > The issue I was referring to is that your reset command will lead to *undoing* changes from master (unrelated to your branch) when you commit in the end (all the changes that are in master but not in

Hi All, Ok, just for the matter of providing feedback that may be useful for others, I figured out one way to do it based on the setup that I described earlier. It can be something like this git checkout patchbranch # checkout to the patch branch, this is the one containing the differential patch code git checkout -b tmp # checkout to a new tmp branch git reset —soft master

> On 10 Nov 2019, at 07:00, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > recipe is not correct in the absolute: the delta from master does not mean it contains exactly what you want, you seem to assume that master didn't evolve between the time "patchbranch" was created. > Hi Mehdi, I’m doing it this way to make sure that master /actually/ contains “exactly

Hi Melanie, Thanks for your reply, but if I understand it well, this implies making changes to the local ‘main’ branch, and push from that, which is what I want to avoid. But still, if I push from ‘main’, how do I fold a number of local commits into a single one, with a single comment, as appropriate for LLVM?. My workflow consists on creating different local branches to avoid changes on the

Just push :) On Tue, May 12, 2020, 8:46 AM Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> wrote: > I was also using "git llvm push" to commit, sort of out of habit. What's a > recommended, alternative way to push? > > On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 11:57 AM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> I was actually using `git

Hi Zola, thanks for the response. People brought forth reasons why we should not have git scripts in the repo. I'm not sure about that but as long as we don't see other people coming forward, we don't need it in the repo. I can have a private copy after all. Thanks again,   Johannes On 5/15/20 2:16 PM, Zola Bridges via llvm-dev wrote: > Hey everyone, > > I missed

@Zola, Eric, I really feel the communication and reasoning here is problematic. From my perspective, you removed stuff "we don't need", ignoring whether it is used, and then let people figure out how to deal with the result. What I most dislike about the process most is how questions and concerns are then ignored or played down. Thanks,   Johannes On 5/12/20 2:10 PM,

For some reason this thread seems to be gone in a wrong direction. I'm sorry for that. The discussion on the RFC asked for a reason to keep the script, I think we heard reasons to do so (due to branches). Now, I was unable to determine if the `git llvm` scripts was removed "just as part of the bunch" or if we expect a problem with the script. If it is the former, are there

FWIW, I'm not against people using the script if there's a good reason for it, but I'd be somewhat opposed to mandating it, as that could easily get confusing for people like me who work in both downstream and upstream repos who wouldn't want to use the scripts downstream - it would be fairly straightforward to forget to use it/use it incorrectly, and depending on what the script

TBH, all I initially asked for, still ask for, is a reason why `git llvm` was being removed. Your email was the only one that hinted on a reason. (more below) On 5/12/20 4:00 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:50 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> @Zola, Eric, >> >> >> I really feel the

If you want to use your key to authenticate, you need to set your remote URL to the SSH one: git remote set-url --push origin git at github.com:llvm/llvm-project.git You can get the SSH URL by going to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ and clicking on Clone or download to get the appropriate URL ... it should give you the option to Clone with SSH. I've not had a ton of luck with HTTPS

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 7:20 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > On 05/11/2018 08:40 PM, Daniel Berlin via llvm-dev wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:37 PM, Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at google.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 12:49 PM Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> >> wrote: >>

I mentioned this earlier in the thread - I would like to see something like D41574 in the optimizer. It's optimizing code that no other pass does currently, and I don't see any other near-term proposal that gets us those optimizations. Omer, can you rebase that to trunk? I think a header has moved, so it doesn't build as-is. I'd like to know if it can catch the cases in D45842. If

Hi Hal, In that case what is the best way to query whether there is a loop carried dependence between B[j] and A[j] at i-loop level? We were operating under the assumption of 'conservatively correct' behavior of alias analysis in the function scope? Thanks, Pankaj From: Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 11:50 AM To: Hiroshi Yamauchi <yamauchi at

Hello, I have just read the LLVM paper (CGO'04) and thought it was an interesting project. And, I am wondering if there exists a Java frontend (that compiles Java bytecode to LLVM code) as the paper mentioned. If there is any, what is the status of it? Pardon me if this information is obviously provided somewhere in the LLVM web site. Best regards, Hiroshi Yamauchi Purdue University

My understanding is that alias analysis returns results in the function scope, not in loop scope. Since both the phis access both global arrays, that should results in BasicAA conservatively returning MayAlias. I debugged this a little bit and narrowed it down to the section of the code in BasicAAResult::aliasPHI() which has this comment- // Analyse the PHIs' inputs under the assumption

I don't exactly remember when I last tried it and I didn't realize there was r342896. I'll check it out. Thanks. On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:14 PM Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com> wrote: > > Printing was implemented in r342896. > @Hiroshi: Are there specific issues or limitations you encountered with it? > > Cheers, > Philip > > On Wed, Jul 10,

I had a chance to try -print-after-all with NPM. It seems like there's still no output for the passes before objc-arc-contract (which is basically what I saw before.) Does anyone else see this? Are we talking about the same thing? *** IR Dump After ObjC ARC contraction *** *** IR Dump After Pre-ISel Intrinsic Lowering *** *** IR Dump After Expand Atomic instructions *** *** IR Dump After

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Yonghong, > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:40, Y Song via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The `git llvm push` used to work for me. Not it stopped working. > > > > Does anybody know what have changed recently? > > We recently switched to git and