- User Since
- Mar 8 2013, 1:12 AM (341 w, 2 d)
Fri, Sep 13
Sat, Sep 7
FYI, AVR, as experimental backend, wasn't updated. I did it in https://reviews.llvm.org/rL371293 to unbreak the build.
Thu, Sep 5
Mon, Sep 2
@Charusso This probably should be added to the release notes:
and detailed in the doc.
Please let me know if you need help!
Thu, Aug 29
Wed, Aug 28
@ziangwan maybe you should add this improvement to the release notes, wdyt?
FYI, it found a bunch of new warnings in Firefox:
Mon, Aug 26
@tejohnson Nested if ? :)
Sun, Aug 25
On Ubuntu Xenial with cmake 3.5.1, it fails with:
Aug 22 2019
Aug 19 2019
@chandlerc What do you think? thanks!
Aug 18 2019
With pleasure :)
My change is https://reviews.llvm.org/D64740
And it isnt really urgent as it has been this way for years now
I don't think we can unilaterally update the license. Especially as the new code is different.
My change need some work (summer doesn't help). The testsuites work, the unit tests on this file don't.
Aug 16 2019
You should also probably add a note in the release notes (maybe for the others changes too)
thanks for the work btw!
Aug 3 2019
Jul 16 2019
I took the liberty to add the option to the cmake doc
Jul 15 2019
Jul 14 2019
@beanz By the way, maybe we should add this in the 9 release notes?
Implement the change (just update VERSION)
Jul 12 2019
@rnk looks like it is too risky to remove it.
What about changing it from
I went ahead and committed your revert in r365992. Thanks!
Thanks @rnk :)
@rnk Should be good this time :)
Actually remove it
Jul 11 2019
Jul 10 2019
@rnk Works for you?
I would like to land that before the 9 branch. Thanks
I would like to land that before the 9 branch. @tstellar do you sign off on this change? Thanks
Jul 9 2019
Update of the release note.
thanks to @rnk for the suggestion
@beanz works for you?
Sure, done in r365445
thanks for your work!
Jul 8 2019
@VelocityRa could you please add it to the release notes?
I can commit the change if you need
Jul 6 2019
@rnk is it good for you ?
Jul 2 2019
This isn't firefox per say but thirdparty apps.
If you feel confident, sure, we can land that and see what happens :)
Actually, not sure it is a good idea to remove them: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64062#1566460
Actually, I don't think removing -dumpversion is a great idea. it will remove the capability of clang to be a dropped in replacement.
Jun 30 2019
For now, it isn't part of the debian packaging.
it is removed as packaging phase as I have been told it isn't ready.
Jun 27 2019
@rnk how do you feel about removing both? I can take care of that if you want
Jun 26 2019
If accepted, I will of course update the release notes
Jun 21 2019
FYI, I had similar patches for Linux/Debian packaging.
Jun 14 2019
Jun 11 2019
I will wait for @dexonsmith 's opinion
Jun 8 2019
fix rst syntax
Fix the typo (thanks hubert)
update of the release notes
May 21 2019
May 18 2019
@beanz Great doc, thanks! I will see what I could use for Debian/Ubuntu packages (as we have a lot users and packages organized in a specific way, it isn't always easy to make huge changes)
May 17 2019
ok, it should probably be installed in that case (it is currently in usr/lib/llvm-9/lib/libclang_shared.so.9 )
by the way, the name of lib isn't super explicit :/
May 16 2019
This change is breaking the build on i386 stage2 build.
Thanks, I reported:
to have it in 8.0.1
May 1 2019
@atanasyan, I tried with
Apr 27 2019
I took the liberty to add that in the release notes of clang
Apr 26 2019
Apr 19 2019
Apr 16 2019
As you wish.
People who might encounter the same issue will (hopefully) find this review
I didn't look at the details. It was failing with 3.4, upgrading to 3.5 address the issue.
Apr 8 2019
To be clear, this isn't about format stability and distributing but making sure that two same runs of clang produces the same output.
I won't have time to write the test for that (and would not know where to start). I am just the messenger :)