rengolin wrote:
> @tru I'd ask @AaronBallman. My vote would be to reformat.
Not as a requirement for this patch, I imagine?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65744
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.or
rengolin wrote:
> Is this suggestion correct?
Doesn't look right to me. I seems it's suggesting 4 spaces tabs, which isn't
what we normally use. Something wrong with the clang-format job, maybe?
@tru @tstellar
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65744
__
rengolin wrote:
CI failure looks like Buildkite issue?
```
$ /etc/buildkite-agent/hooks/pre-checkout
--
| BUILDKITE_REPO: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project.git
| fatal: not a git repository (or any parent up to mount point /var/lib)
| Stopping at filesystem boundary (GIT_DISCOVERY_ACROSS
rengolin wrote:
> At some point it would be nice to have some design document or documentation
> somewhere explaining how all these MLIR runners works, including this one.
The idea is to eventually consolidate all runners into one. This PR is just
another piece of the puzzle.
Once we're all h
rengolin accepted this revision.
rengolin added a reviewer: rengolin.
rengolin added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
I'm auto accepting this proposal, as it seems to have ran its course.
The commit is r276097.
If anyone has any additional comment/suggestion, please su
rengolin added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463#489483, @jlebar wrote:
> Again, we can make this work with submodules, but it's a giant pain, see my
> earlier comment.
(...)
> I've read as many of these as I can find in the past few hours, and every
> argument I have found is, i
rengolin added a comment.
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.
Having a single repository was part of the original proposal for years, and
every time it was sh
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64469.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
+===
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64468.
rengolin added a comment.
Formatting issues (bullet points)
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++ do
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64467.
rengolin added a comment.
More updates, following recent comments.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:68
@@ +67,3 @@
+ * Collaborate with peers directly, even without access to the Internet
+ * Have multiple trees without multiplying disk space, multiple concurrent
builds
+
vsk wrote:
> What do
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:127
@@ +126,3 @@
+* The projects' repositories will remain identical, with a new address
(GitHub).
+* They'll continue to have SVN RW access, but will also gain Git RW access.
+* The linear history can still be
rengolin created this revision.
rengolin added reviewers: lattner, chandlerc, jyknight, mehdi_amini, MatzeB,
probinson, t.p.northover, chapuni, delcypher, dberlin, rsmith, beanz,
cmatthews, asl, aaron.ballman, bcraig, Bigcheese, jroelofs, theraven, greened,
hong.gyu.kim, rafael, AlexDenisov, sil
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:209
@@ +208,3 @@
+ well as a webhook to update the umbrella project (see below).
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history, up
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64383.
rengolin added a comment.
Expand step 2 to make sure we don't forget about the safety hooks on each
project as well as the webhook to update the umbrella project. This could turn
out to be a buildbot, but makes no difference at this stage.
https://
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:208
@@ +207,3 @@
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account, with all necessary hooks (history, update, merges).
+4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project works.
--
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:200
@@ +199,3 @@
+
+Here's a proposed plan:
+
You can click on the "<<" button and it will show where it was first inserted.
That's how I found out. :)
The hooks, AFAICS, will be added to the
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64373.
rengolin added a comment.
Removing "broken" to describe the history, just explaining it'll be local.
Expanding to mention that hooks will need to be implemented in step 3.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: d
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:198
@@ +197,3 @@
+3. Make sure we have an llvm-project (with submodules) setup in the official
+ account.
+4. Make sure bisecting with llvm-project works.
mehdi_amini wrote:
> Uh, this point i
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64371.
rengolin added a comment.
Second round of suggestions applied.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
===
--- /dev/null
+++
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:8-9
@@ +7,4 @@
+
+This is a proposal to move our current revision control system from Subversion
+to GitHub. Below are the financial and technical arguments as to why we need
+such a move and how will people (an
rengolin removed rL LLVM as the repository for this revision.
rengolin updated this revision to Diff 64334.
rengolin added a comment.
First round of changes reflecting reviews.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463
Files:
docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
Index: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst
=
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: docs/Proposals/GitHub.rst:129
@@ +128,3 @@
+* The linear history can still be accessed in the (RO) submodule meta project,
+ Which will continue to have SVN access.
+
compnerd wrote:
> "Which will continue to have SVN a
Author: rengolin
Date: Sat May 14 08:14:39 2016
New Revision: 269562
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=269562&view=rev
Log:
[LLDB] Adding lldb_private namespace to DiagnosticSeverity. NFC.
This is a fix due to the addition of the new DiagnosticSeverity in
LLVMContext.h. This may warran
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19604#421086, @omjavaid wrote:
> Right now we can distingusih between hard and soft float based on ABI
> information in elf. But cant really tell if hard float is legacy VFP or neon.
If the object has build attributes, it could help. But yo
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19604#420681, @jasonmolenda wrote:
> fwiw, there are ARM cores that only support thumb - the Cortex M series.
And they're still "armv7". :)
Remember, "armv7" is *not* the same as ARMv7A+NEON. If the only thing you have
is "armv7" or even "
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19604#419284, @sas wrote:
> - We don't use thumb-* triples in lldb as far as I can see. Thumb is handled
> just fine regardless of the triple.
This is a good strategy. Thumb is an instruction set, the "arm-" in the triple
means the Archite
rengolin added reviewers: omjavaid, compnerd.
rengolin added a comment.
Nice! LLDB on ARM Windows! :)
Adding Omair and Saleem to approve, as hard-coding the triple may bring
unwanted consequences.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19604
___
lldb-commits ma
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19480#410762, @tberghammer wrote:
> I committed in this change based on the approval from @labath with the
> Android - EABI support (no hard float) to get the LLDB Android ARM buildbots
> green again. If you have any more question comment th
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D19480#410620, @tberghammer wrote:
> Both executables and shared libraries are containing ARM Attributes what
> contains the information about soft-float vs hard-float. I am not sure how
> accurate it is as in theory you can link together an
rengolin added a comment.
Don't Android libraries output build attributes for ARM? If they do, that's an
easy way to know.
http://reviews.llvm.org/D19480
___
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailma
rengolin added inline comments.
Comment at: source/Core/ArchSpec.cpp:1017
@@ +1016,3 @@
+// considered to be compatible. This is required as a workaround for
shared libraries compiled
+// for Android without the NOTE section indicating that they are using the
Android ABI
On 28 October 2015 at 16:33, Galina Kistanova via llvm-commits
wrote:
> E-mail notification has been changed in the buildmaster. Now it should not
> count interrupted builds to figure out if notification should be send.
Thanks Galina, that'll reduce the noise considerably!
cheers,
--renato
_
rengolin added a comment.
In http://reviews.llvm.org/D13578#264072, @jasonmolenda wrote:
> I'm trying to rewrite IsAlwaysThumbInstructions() to use the information that
> llvm already has, as per Renato's suggestion. The MCSubtargetInfo has a
> getFeatureBits() method which can indicate ARM::F
rengolin added a comment.
Hi Jason,
This has nothing to do with your patch per se, but we have accurate target
descriptions in LLVM, and the parser for all the triples and extra options is
now publicly available, so I was wondering if (probably after this go in), you
could have a look at using
35 matches
Mail list logo
