similar to: RFC: Using GitHub Actions for CI testing on the release/* branches

On 02/06/2020 08:41 AM, Russell Gallop wrote: > Hi Tom, > > Thank you for setting this up. It's very useful. > > One question about what this builds. It only builds "ninja check-all", not "ninja all"[1]. check-all isn't a strict superset of all so while this covers most things, this does miss building a few things such as: > bin/clang-offload-wrapper

Please forgive the incorrect threading on this reply to Tom Stellard's RFC. > I would like to start using GitHub Actions[1] for CI testing on the release/* > branches. As far as I know we don't have any buildbots listening to the > release branches, and I think GitHub Actions are a good way for us to > quickly bring-up some CI jobs there. Personally, I feel that Tom's

> I think my concern is that LLVM could prove to be too big and require too many resources for github's infrastructure. How many patches go into LLVM a day, and how many build and test jobs does GitHub allow users to run concurrently before being throttled? Please, no one confuse "what should be LLVM's official CIs" with "what can we do to make it easier for individuals

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

On 12/10/2019 12:06 AM, Tobias Hieta wrote: > Hello, > > I finally figured out that I still need Python 2.7 in order to get > tests running correctly on macOS. But this lead to a bunch of test > fails when using the script: > > FAIL: LLVM :: Bindings/Go/go.test (23671 of 61786) I've seen this go failure before on macOS, so it is somewhat expected. Do the rest of these

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 > The binaries have been posted now. > I also checked https://releases.llvm.org/ because I recall some debate or back-and-forth about where the releases should go and/or redirects or links from

Here's another question about the current status of this. It's close to two months after the official monorepo was supposed to be published. Can someone give an update? Is this on hold indefinitely? Are there concrete issues that people are working on and this will happen as soon as those are resolved? At the least, I'm assuming the "SVN will shut down 1 year from now"

Based on ideas from the R-core discussion panel at useR2020, I created a little CI tool to make it easier to follow changes in R-devel, and to write/test patches for R. The tool is based on a Github mirror of the SVN, where each new commit triggers a full make-check on 8 different system configurations. The results are published on: https://r-devel.github.io which gives an overview of the most

+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;

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.

Good morning, I have succesfully buil ovirt on fedora 11 but running ace -d l /tmp/ace.log install ovirt I got en error (I think it is krb5 issue). My server was not a kerberos server before installing ovirt, so I think ace procedure has installed it. Attacchede here there is the ace.log file. Could anyone help me ? Thanks & Regards Ignazio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

Hi, everyone. I'm trying to build LLVM myself because the page I was linked to with the links to pre-built binaries doesn't have a passing WASM build of LLVM. Or at least didn't when I last checked there. With that being said, though, when I tried to build INSTALL.vcxproj, I got the error mentioned in the title of this message. The full error message is in the attached text file.

Please can we shut down one of the two systems for new bugs ASAP? We've already had an instance of someone filing the same bug using both systems, with two different fixes being committed by two different people at the same time... On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 06:49, Robinson, Paul via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From:

IIRC it’s not strictly possible to determine what array a load/store is based on. I don’t believe the decomposition is always possible, as information is lost when accesses are combined. Neil On Apr 17, 2019, 12:31 PM -0700, Arsenault, Matthew <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com>, wrote: > This is really a codegen problem. You can decompose the load/store however you like in the backend.

On 10/15/2019 09:44 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 9:33 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com <mailto:tstellar at redhat.com>> wrote: > > On 10/15/2019 09:24 PM, Mehdi AMINI wrote: > > Hi Tom. > > > > One issue with this is that we don't have a clear "ordering" from linear revision numbers from

On 03/16/2020 11:09 PM, Roman Lebedev wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 6:07 AM Tom Stellard via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On 03/16/2020 10:13 AM, Florian Hahn wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> On Mar 16, 2020, at 14:43, Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Here it is, a missing file "analyze.1" :- /usr/bin/groff -Tps -man /usr/build/llvm/docs/CommandGuide/analyze.1 > /usr/buil d/llvm/docs/CommandGuide/analyze.ps troff: fatal error: can't open `/usr/build/llvm/docs/CommandGuide/analyze.1': No such file or directory make[2]: *** [/usr/build/llvm/docs/CommandGuide/analyze.ps] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory

To weigh in here... On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:15 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > +Daniel & Michael who work on the LNT infrastructure & might have some > thoughts on the differences & their merits & motivations. > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > David, > > > >

I’m writing a pass for some custom hardware — we’d like to split arrays across hardware elements; this doesn’t work if consecutive writes to characters get combined to a word. On Apr 16, 2019, 8:17 PM -0700, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com>, wrote: > On 04/16/2019 11:38 AM, Neil Ryan via llvm-dev wrote: > > LLVM's optimizer combines stores to consecutive characters into a