similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] CMake: Use LLVM_VERSION_SUFFIX instead of hardcoded "svn" string

LGTM. -Chris > On Feb 27, 2015, at 3:27 AM, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek at gmail.com> > --- > CMakeLists.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/CMakeLists.txt b/CMakeLists.txt > index ed7aeb026f5d..60fe427e456e 100644 > --- a/CMakeLists.txt > +++

[ Please CC me I ma not subcribed to this mailing-list ] [ CC Tom and Hans as LLVM/stable maintainers ] Hi, I want to understand the version handling in LLVM/Clang/LLD. Normally, I build from "release/10.x" Git branch by using the tool tc-build from ClangBuiltLinux project. With "llvm-10.0.1-rc1" Git tag I was able to setup a llvm-toolchain consisting of the projects

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: > > On 05/19/2020 09:05 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > Hi Tom, > > > > thanks and congrats for LLVM 10.0.1-rc1 release. > > > > [1] shows 2 assets. > > 10.0.0 RCs had a lot of more assets. > > I am missing the llvm-project-10.0.1rc1.tar.xz tarball. > > > > Will

On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:12 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: > > On 05/20/2020 09:53 AM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 05/19/2020 09:05 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote: > >>> Hi Tom, > >>> > >>> thanks and congrats for LLVM

Hi Tom, thanks and congrats for LLVM 10.0.1-rc1 release. [1] shows 2 assets. 10.0.0 RCs had a lot of more assets. I am missing the llvm-project-10.0.1rc1.tar.xz tarball. Will you provide them later or is there a new development/workflow decision I do not know of? BTW, the source zip and tar.gz tarballs show no sizes. I am using Mobile LTE/UMTS to download stuff from the Internet. For now I

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 26 June 2016 at 13:31, Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> What you're probably missing is that 3.8.1 is made in release_38 >> branch. So, everything is there and already mirrored. >> >> Source tarballs will be available upon the

On 26 June 2016 at 13:31, Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > What you're probably missing is that 3.8.1 is made in release_38 > branch. So, everything is there and already mirrored. > > Source tarballs will be available upon the release. Which are just coming, now that final has been tested successfully. :) They'll be announced in the

> Can you answer my question on how to set the version-string correct > when generating tarballs out of the release_38 Git branch? > ( I generated source-tarballs out of my local Git repositories, see below. ) [ llvm.src/CMakeLists.txt ] ... if(NOT DEFINED LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR) set(LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR 3) endif() if(NOT DEFINED LLVM_VERSION_MINOR) set(LLVM_VERSION_MINOR 8) endif() if(NOT

On 02/05/2019 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 11:23 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: >> On 02/05/2019 08:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote: >>> On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 07:36 -0800, Tom Stellard via Release-testers >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> The release_70 branch is ready for the 7.1.0 release. I have updated the

On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:13 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: > On 02/05/2019 11:32 AM, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote: > > On 02/05/2019 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 11:23 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: > > > > On 02/05/2019 08:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 07:36 -0800, Tom Stellard via

On Wed, 2019-02-06 at 14:09 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: > On 02/05/2019 10:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:13 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: > > > On 02/05/2019 11:32 AM, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote: > > > > On 02/05/2019 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 11:23 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote: >

Hi everyone, I just reported the following issue: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24927 Using the Xcode 7 linker, one gets messages such as the following when linking objects generated using llvm: ld: warning: object file (foo.o) was built for newer OS X version (14.5) than being linked (10.9) The issue is the following: a) In lib/Support/Unix/Host.inc, sys::getDefaultTargetTriple()

On 02/05/2019 08:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 07:36 -0800, Tom Stellard via Release-testers > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The release_70 branch is ready for the 7.1.0 release. I have updated the >> version and pushed a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39427, >> which is the only bug we will be fixing in this release. >> >>

LLVM 3.2 came as a nice Christmas present. Just one minor question: I noticed that the version string (used to name the shared library etc.) is "3.2svn" instead of the expected "3.2". This violates our build system's expectations of what things are called. It would be easy for us to change, but I want to make sure this is not a mistake. I am fairly certain I downloaded the

Just in case someone is having similar problems and/or following this thread, here's my final "solution" (at least, for now). In my bash build script, prior to configure, I set the C_INCLUDE_PATH and CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH to empty strings, and then set some other environment variables instead: export C_INCLUDE_PATH= export CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH=

Hi, Would it be possible to add a define of the LLVM version in the headers? Something like #define LLVM_VERSION 0x0207 or #define LLVM_VERSION_MAJOR 2 #define LLVM_VERSION_MINOR 7 This would simplify supporting more than one LLVM version (typically latest stable and head) from external projects. We are using some complicated logic to achieve the above with from "llvm-config

Jeff Bezanson <jeff.bezanson at gmail.com> writes: > LLVM 3.2 came as a nice Christmas present. Just one minor question: I > noticed that the version string (used to name the shared library etc.) > is "3.2svn" instead of the expected "3.2". This violates our build > system's expectations of what things are called. It would be easy for > us to change,

On 28/03/2018 07:19, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote: > Hi, > > I've tagged 5.0.2-rc1, so testing can begin. LLVM_VERSION_PATCH is set to "1". Is that normal? (I was expecting "2"). http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_502/rc1/CMakeLists.txt?revision=328512&view=markup#29 Thanks Sylvestre

I'm continuing this here in llvm-dev since the thread was started here, but, in hindsight, it may have been better in cfe-dev, because the problem seems to be related to clang. I turned on "verbose" mode in make (VERBOSE=1 TOOL_VERBOSE=1) and found that it is clang, not gcc, that is being used at this point in the make. Based on the command issued (particularly with the --sysroot

This is mostly to Hans since he builds these AIUI, but would be worth getting others' opinions too. I'd like to ask whether building the Windows binaries *without* LLVM_INSTALL_TOOLCHAIN_ONLY could be considered and tried. Would the result be a prohibitive amount larger than the current installer? LLVM is an incredibly useful set of libraries and has many use cases, including on Windows,