On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:27:36PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2018, at 00:51, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:49:16PM +0200, Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev wrote:
> >> This is a regression caused by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL323281:
> >>
> >> -
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:49:16PM +0200, Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev wrote:
> This is a regression caused by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL323281:
>
>
> r323281 | wmi | 2018-01-23 23:27:57 + (Tue, 23 Jan 2018) | 12 lines
>
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 03:47:56PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger via lldb-dev wrote:
> (a) Make the mutex explicit if 64bit operations are not lock-free.
>
> or
>
> (b) Weaken the consistency constraints to provide eventually-consistent
> times by splitting the field into explicit
Hi all,
there was a commit a while ago that effectively forces all LLVM projects
to use libatomics on 32bit platforms. It is completely necessary for
clang and LLVM, of limited usefulness for libc++ ( test cases)
and necessary for LLDB right now. The only instance in LLDB is
include/Utility/Timer.h
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:02:52AM -0700, Adrian McCarthy via cfe-dev wrote:
> > Most free and open-source software packages, including MediaWiki, treat
> > versions as a series of individual numbers, separated by periods, with a
> > progression such as 1.7.0, 1.8.0, 1.8.1, 1.9.0, 1.10.0, 1.11.0, 1
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:32:45AM -0500, via llvm-dev wrote:
> My only hesitation with this is that this requires use of cherry-pick,
> which is not idea. The way most git repositories work is to put
> everything that should go into a release branch in the release branch
> *first* and then merge
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 04:48:36PM +0100, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote:
> * Git developer tooling is a growing trend, while SVN tooling is
> dying. This is not just about GUIs, but repository management (GitHub,
> GitLab, BitBucket, etc versus SourceForge), bisects, branches,
> remotes, hooks,
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:43:02PM -0700, Matthias Braun wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:45:30PM -0700, Matthias Braun wrote:
> >> To be more exact here: I usually do not checkout llvm svn at a higher
> >> l
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 01:45:30PM -0700, Matthias Braun wrote:
> To be more exact here: I usually do not checkout llvm svn at a higher
> level because that forces me back to svn (which last time I used it did
> not have built-in support for bisection, not sure if that changed
> recently).
svn-bis
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:24:08PM -0400, Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev
> wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > There has been some discussion on IRC about SVN hosting and the perils
> > of doing it ourselves. The consensus on the current discussi
On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 06:34:09PM -0800, William Dillon via lldb-dev wrote:
> There are a handful of -Wformat warnings on 32-bit platforms.
> I addressed all those that I’ve seen while working on Swift.
> Let me know if the git diff format is inappropriate for this.
Don't cast size_t to uint64_t,
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:42:06AM -0700, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev wrote:
> EH frame can't be used to unwind when we are in the first frame because
> it is only valid at call sites. It also can't be used in frames that
> are asynchronously interrupted like signal handler frames.
This is not neces
12 matches
Mail list logo
