similar to: LLVM Incubator + new projects draft

> On Jun 30, 2020, at 11:52 AM, Roman Lebedev <lebedev.ri at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:44 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> The idea of adding an “incubation” stage to projects in the LLVM world seems to be positively received. I also noticed that we don’t really document the new project policy in

Hah, whoops, sorry about that. This is the correct link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ss4jGHywL0Y2KW_l4LqTo5CgJxx3i0_4-FkbXiPQMus/edit> -Chris > On Jun 30, 2020, at 1:41 PM, Thomas Lively <tlively at google.com> wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > I'm also seeing an access denied

This looks to be a reasonable starting point. A couple of nit picks, none are blockers. 1. I'd hold off on handing out the sub-domain for the moment. This feels more official than we probably want for a random incubator.  I reserve the right to change my mind here, but maybe we should delay this part until we see what actual incubators look like?  As an alternative, maybe

Per the recent (seeming) consensus regarding incubating new projects under the LLVM organization, I would like to trial the process by requesting to incubate mlir-npcomp <https://github.com/google/mlir-npcomp>. The project is still quite young and has been primarily developed part time by myself and Sean Silva over the last ~2 months. We set it up following discussion of a Numpy/Scipy op set

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 11:12 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'm not sure I agree with the no-code standard. I agree with minimal code, but I think an incubator should be established enough to be discussed concretely (e.g. "what is" vs "ideals"). > > I hear what you’re saying, but I think we can handle this as part of

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 9:54 AM Nicolai Hähnle <nhaehnle at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:40 PM Stella Laurenzo via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > We originally started it as a fork of the LLVM repository, but > transitioned to the MLIR standalone template, and we found it more > productive to iterate out of tree in this fashion,

> On Jun 24, 2020, at 9:53 AM, Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 2:40 PM Stella Laurenzo via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> We originally started it as a fork of the LLVM repository, but transitioned to the MLIR standalone template, and we found it more productive to iterate out of tree in

For the past several months, members of the ‘CIRCT’ group have been working to begin adapting MLIR for hardware design. We believe that this area would benefit from good open source infrastructure enabling research and, eventually, the next generation of commercial tools. We have collected several dialects and envision a number of lowering flows using these dialects. We have reached the point

Sure, I'll summarize with respect to the criterion in the document: - Must be generally aligned with the mission of the LLVM project to advance compilers, languages, tools, runtimes, etc. CIRCT is a compiler which is built around LLVM/MLIR. We anticipate building code generation for ASIC and FPGA backends along with specialized accelerators, while leveraging existing LLVM backends for

Hi all, Today, we maintain a high bar for getting a new subproject into LLVM: first a subproject has to be built far enough along to “prove its worth” to be part of the LLVM monorepo (e.g. demonstrate community, etc). Once conceptually approved, it needs to follow all of the policies and practices expected by an LLVM subproject. This is problematic for a couple reasons: it implicitly means that

Michah, On Jul 17, 2012, at 7:53 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Owen/Chandler/etc.., > While I have no issue with having a more complete and documented method of submitting backends, the problem is the barrier to entry for some backends is being significantly raised, where they did not exist in the past. In the past AMD has reported issues that we

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:44:25AM -0700, Owen Anderson wrote: > Tom, > > I think it might be productive to fork this thread to discuss making the requirements for upstreaming a new LLVM target more explicit and open. I'd also like to gauge interest in an idea I've discussed privately with a few community members, namely the concept of having a semi-official

Owen/Chandler/etc.., While I have no issue with having a more complete and documented method of submitting backends, the problem is the barrier to entry for some backends is being significantly raised, where they did not exist in the past. In the past AMD has reported issues that we have found from internal development to LLVM, along with patches in some cases. Some have been fixed, but others are

I am trying to find the mean for the elements in the vector Incubation=as.POSIXlt(OnsetTime)-as.POSIXlt(MealTime) where OnsetTime=c(NA,"1940-04-19 00:30","1940-04-19 00:30","1940-04-19 00:30",NA,"1940-04-18 22:30","1940-04-18 22:30","1940-04-19 02:00","1940-04-19 01:00","1940-04-18

Dear R users. I am little lost and i need your help. I have such data. DATE i Symptomes t 1 2009-04-24 Mexique 0 14358 2 2009-04-24 usa 0 14358 3 2009-04-26 Mexique 18 14360 4 2009-04-26 usa 100 14360 5 2009-04-27 Canada 6 14361 6 2009-04-27

Hi everybody, this e-mail is to let you know that the OpenMirage project is seeking to become a Xen.org hosted project. The prospective project lead of the Mirage Project - Anil Madhavapeddy - has requested a Review of the Mirage Project to become an Xen.org Incubation project. In line with Xen Project Governance (see http://www.xen.org/projects/governance.html), in particular sections -

> On Jul 8, 2020, at 8:52 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > It would be nice to have an external MLIR user in the project, and > this project seems really well organised and relevant. +1 from me, > too. I think that flang beat us to the punch as the first external MLIR user :-) but thank you for your support Renato! -Chris > > On

Uh-oh: Failed to publish: GitHub error 404 on POST https://api.github.com/repos/llvm/mlir-npcomp/pulls/42/reviews: Not Found (The llvm organization may need to authorize Reviewable as an accepted third party application.) Can an admin take the suggested action on the mlir-npcomp project in the LLVM org? I've followed the instructions in this help doc

Hello all, I need a help. I am modeling a disease and a create a R function like that: Lambda<-function (x,date1,r,h,a){ ndate1 <- as.Date(date1, "%d/%m/%Y") t1 <- as.numeric(ndate1) x[order(x$i),] t <-x[,"t"] i <-x[,"i"] CONTAGIEUX <-x[,"CONTAGIEUX"] while ( t1 < min(t) ){ for (i in 1:length(i) ){ {for (j in

Hey Bjorn, Were you able to figure this out or is it still broken for you? Our scenario is a little bit different, but I have a theory as to what may be going wrong. What linker are you using when you compile your project with clang-cl? I am wondering whether the version of the linker and/or the libraries that you are using is too old in comparison to the one used for the clang compilation.