similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: put commit messages in *-commits subject lines?

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, everyone. I was comparing our commit messages with another commit list I'm on, and I realized (not for the first time) that our subject lines are less than useful. Why don't we have the first line of our commit messages in the subject lines? Compare: > > [cfe-commits] r167788 - in

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, everyone. I was comparing our commit messages with another commit list I'm on, and I realized (not for the first time) that our subject lines are less than useful. Why don't we have the first line of our commit messages in the subject lines? Compare: > > [cfe-commits] r167788 - in

On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> [cfe-commits] r167788 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/Analysis/CFG.cpp test/Analysis/dead-stores.cpp >> >> with >> >> [cfe-commits] r167788 - Fix bad CFG construction bug when handling C++ 'try' statements. >> >> The first gives me just enough information (in my

On 11/16/2012 02:47 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > >>> [cfe-commits] r167788 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/Analysis/CFG.cpp test/Analysis/dead-stores.cpp >>> >>> with >>> >>> [cfe-commits] r167788 - Fix bad CFG construction bug when handling C++ 'try'

I agree that the list name is redundant and should be dropped, but the revision number is compact and very useful... -Chris On Nov 15, 2012, at 6:45 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 11/16/2012 02:47 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> >>>>

Hi, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:28 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > >> [cfe-commits] r167788 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/Analysis/CFG.cpp test/Analysis/dead-stores.cpp > >> > >> with > >> > >> [cfe-commits] r167788 - Fix bad CFG construction bug when handling C++ 'try' statements. >

Hi, Sebastian Pop wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > > I'm in favor of it. Of course, the truly awesomest thing would be something like: > > > > [cfe-commits] r167788 - [lib/Analysis] Fix bad CFG construction bug when handling C++ 'try' statements. > > commit_subject_template = %(prefix)s r%(revision)s - %(log)s I just realized that this line does not

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Sebastian Pop wrote: >> Chris Lattner wrote: >> > I'm in favor of it. Of course, the truly awesomest thing would be something like: >> > >> > [cfe-commits] r167788 - [lib/Analysis] Fix bad CFG construction bug when handling C++ 'try' statements.

Is anybody working on this? If not, where might one start looking to fix this? -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of David Blaikie Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 1:52 PM To: Sebastian Pop Cc: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Developers; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] RFC: put commit messages in *-commits

David Blaikie wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Sebastian Pop wrote: > >> Chris Lattner wrote: > >> > I'm in favor of it. Of course, the truly awesomest thing would be something like: > >> > > >> > [cfe-commits] r167788 - [lib/Analysis] Fix bad CFG

Bump for something that would be good to do. On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > David Blaikie wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:43 AM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Sebastian Pop wrote: >> >> Chris Lattner wrote: >> >> > I'm in favor of

Hello everyone, Thanks a lot for the help. -target nvptx worked great with llvm-3.2. However it gives error with -target spir. LLVM/Clang trunk although works good for both options ( probably because spir is still work in progress ). Thanks again. - Ankur On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Benyei, Guy <guy.benyei at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Jordan,**** > > You’re right, and

On Jan 23, 2013, at 4:04 , "Benyei, Guy" <guy.benyei at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Ankur, > Since you use –Xclang, the clang executable passes multiple triples to “clang -cc1”. You can see that if you add the -v option. I’m sure there is someone here who can explain it better than I… > Anyhow, I think you better use clang -cc1. Make sure -cc1 is the first command line option

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > I don't have much to add here besides +1. I think using std::unique_ptr > even for create* functions/methods is the right way to go. +1 smart pointers here are a win in terms of safety and self-documentation. I don't see why create* factories should be treated differently. Eli >

On Dec 17, 2013, at 9:32 , Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2013, at 9:24 , Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi, Takumi. Your CMake changes seem to be working just fine with the standalone Xcode build. However, the build products are still being put in bin/Debug instead of Debug/bin. Was that supposed to change yet? Maybe

+John C and Daniel, who have access to the servers. Way back when this thread was first active I asked around off-list where this needs to happen, and Daniel and Tanya said this (respectively): >> I'd prefer to stick with using either svn-mailer or svnnotify, as those are the ones we use in other places. svnnotify in particular is very full featured, although we would need to install

Jordan Rose wrote: > +John C and Daniel, who have access to the servers. > > Way back when this thread was first active I asked around off-list where this needs to happen, and Daniel and Tanya said this (respectively): > > >> I'd prefer to stick with using either svn-mailer or svnnotify, as those are the ones we use in other places. svnnotify in particular is very full

On Dec 18, 2013, at 9:44 , Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2013, at 9:32 , Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 17, 2013, at 9:24 , Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, Takumi. Your CMake changes seem to be working just fine with the standalone Xcode build. However,

Hi Jordan, You're right, and the driver -target option works perfectly with the SPIR triples. Thanks Guy Benyei [email_signature_guy_new2] From: Jordan Rose [mailto:jordan_rose at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 19:47 To: Benyei, Guy Cc: ankur deshwal; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] OpenCL SPIR/NVPTX code generation On Jan 23, 2013, at

Hi, Takumi. Your CMake changes seem to be working just fine with the standalone Xcode build. However, the build products are still being put in bin/Debug instead of Debug/bin. Was that supposed to change yet? Maybe Xcode needs different settings? (I think I looked into this once and it was non-trivial to change for Xcode, so if it's working for you I guess you don't need to worry about