[Lldb-commits] [flang] [libc] [compiler-rt] [clang] [clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [libcxx] [lld] [lldb] [NVPTX] Add support for -march=native in standalone NVPTX (PR #79373)

jlebar wrote: Got it, okay, thanks. Since this change only applies to `--target=nvptx64-nvidia-cuda`, fine by me. Thanks for putting up with our scrutiny. :) https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79373 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [lld] [lldb] [libcxx] [compiler-rt] [clang-tools-extra] [llvm] [libc] [clang] [flang] [NVPTX] Add support for -march=native in standalone NVPTX (PR #79373)

jlebar wrote: I...think I understand. Is the output of this compilation step a cubin, then? https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79373 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-

[Lldb-commits] [lld] [lldb] [clang-tools-extra] [clang] [libcxx] [libc] [flang] [llvm] [compiler-rt] [NVPTX] Add support for -march=native in standalone NVPTX (PR #79373)

jlebar wrote: > This method of compilation is not like CUDA, so we can't target all the GPUs > at the same time. Can you clarify for me -- what are you compiling where it's impossible to target multiple GPUs in the binary? I'm confused because Art is understanding that it's not CUDA, but we

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r282822 - Move UTF functions into namespace llvm.

Author: jlebar Date: Thu Sep 29 19:38:45 2016 New Revision: 282822 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=282822&view=rev Log: Move UTF functions into namespace llvm. Summary: This lets people link against LLVM and their own version of the UTF library. I determined this only affects llvm,

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

jlebar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#495211, @vladisld wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#494828, @jlebar wrote: > > > I think the general feeling is that most of us (myself included) would > > rather not learn a new tool if there's a simpler >alternative, such as

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

jlebar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#494568, @vladisld wrote: > Have the alternatives to sub-modules and monolithic repository been discussed > ? Hi, Vlad. Please see the ongoing thread in llvm-dev, entitled "[RFC] One or many git repositories?". Tools such as git-repo

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

jlebar added a comment. Hi, Renato. Just to explain why I'm going to go forward with this RFC about a monolithic repository: From speaking with some top contributors on IRC, I have heard that they feel that the discussion of whether to move to git has been conflated with the discussion of how

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

jlebar added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#489461, @rengolin wrote: > You will not be required to use submodules at all, as we'll all use the > individual projects, like we have always been. I don't understand why people > keep going back to it. There is a key use case that is

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

jlebar added a comment. FYI after talking to Chandler, I'm going to write up a separate proposal for the one-repository thing and send it to the list tomorrow. The suggestion was that this phabricator thread isn't the right place to have this discussion. https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463 ___

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D22463: [RFC] Moving to GitHub Proposal: NOT DECISION!

jlebar added a subscriber: jlebar. jlebar added a comment. I'm sure you all have thought about this more than I have, and I apologize if this has been brought up before because I haven't been following the thread closely. But I am not convinced by this document that using subrepositories beats

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D15684: Add note about the "thread until" command to the llvm-gdb cheatsheet.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes. Closed by commit rL257189: Add note about the "thread until" command to the llvm-gdb cheatsheet. (authored by jlebar). Changed prior to commit: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15684?vs=43346&id=44340#toc Repository: rL LLVM

[Lldb-commits] [lldb] r257189 - Add note about the "thread until" command to the llvm-gdb cheatsheet.

Author: jlebar Date: Fri Jan 8 12:56:18 2016 New Revision: 257189 URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=257189&view=rev Log: Add note about the "thread until" command to the llvm-gdb cheatsheet. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15684 Modified: lldb/trunk/www/lldb-gdb.h

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D15684: Add note about the "thread until" command to the llvm-gdb cheatsheet.

jlebar added a comment. I just got commit access yesterday, will check in. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15684 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

Re: [Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D15684: Add note about the "thread until" command to the llvm-gdb cheatsheet.

jlebar added a comment. Thank you for the review! http://reviews.llvm.org/D15684 ___ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits

[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D15684: Add note about the "thread until" command to the llvm-gdb cheatsheet.

jlebar created this revision. jlebar added a reviewer: brucem. jlebar added a subscriber: lldb-commits. http://reviews.llvm.org/D15684 Files: www/lldb-gdb.html Index: www/lldb-gdb.html === --- www/lldb-gdb.html +++ www/lldb-gdb.ht