On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Renato Golin wrote:
> On 8 February 2016 at 22:56, wrote:
>> Imho it's critical to get parallel programming working on ARMv8 ( even if
>> it's crappy OMP) to start. Please enable it and I'll run the tests against
>> our internal QA and we can informally handle t
On 8 February 2016 at 22:56, wrote:
> Imho it's critical to get parallel programming working on ARMv8 ( even if
> it's crappy OMP) to start. Please enable it and I'll run the tests against
> our internal QA and we can informally handle testing / guarding against
> regressions.
Ok, I'll do it
Original Message
From: Renato Golin
Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 21:13
To: C Bergström
Cc: Hans Wennborg; llvm-dev; release-test...@lists.llvm.org; cfe-dev;
openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org); LLDB Dev
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [3.8 Release] Release Candidate 2 source and
bina
Ahh yea I missed that. Makes sense
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:38 PM Siva Chandra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:21 PM Siva Chandra
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Zachary Turner
> wrote:
> >> > Why though?
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:21 PM Siva Chandra wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
>> > Why though?
>>
>> Foremost, I think it is because the lldb driver built as part of the
>> test is linked to the host lld
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:21 PM Siva Chandra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> > Why though?
>
> Foremost, I think it is because the lldb driver built as part of the
> test is linked to the host lldb shared library. If you build a 32-bit
> driver, we will need a 32-
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Zachary Turner wrote:
> Why though?
Foremost, I think it is because the lldb driver built as part of the
test is linked to the host lldb shared library. If you build a 32-bit
driver, we will need a 32-bit lldb shared library as well is it not?
Second, which I thin
Why though? Unless the test explicitly doesn't work on x86 architecture
because it uses some unsupported feature, why skip it? If that were truly
the reason, then we could just make the entire test suite disable support
for i386.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 2:08 PM Siva Chandra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev
wrote:
> Why is this marked @skipIfI386? I don't see anything i386 specific about
> this test. Can this decorator be removed?
I think skipping for i386 is only because most developers are using
64-bit hosts for development. [Heck, even
Why is this marked @skipIfI386? I don't see anything i386 specific about
this test. Can this decorator be removed?
___
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
On 6 February 2016 at 01:02, C Bergström wrote:
> I worked on the port of llvm-OpenMP-formally-known-as-Intel to Aarch64
> - can it be included there as well? (I'm not sure what's precisely
> involved - I'm willing to do my best fixing any bugs which pop up -
Hi Chris,
That'd entail me enabling
11 matches
Mail list logo
