Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 2 has been tagged
Hi, built successfully and passed initial tests on OpenMandriva x86_64, aarch64, i586 and armv7hnl. ttyl bero On 19 August 2016 at 03:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers < release-test...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Dear testers, > > 3.9.0-rc2 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r279183. > > This is a release candidate in the very real sense that if nothing new > comes up, this is be what the final release looks like. There are > currently no open release blockers, and no patches in my merge-queue. > > Please build, test, and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know how > everything goes. > > From this point, the branch is only open for fixing critical problems > (bad enough to warrant another test cycle) and release notes. > > Thanks, > Hans > ___ > Release-testers mailing list > release-test...@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/release-testers > ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 2 has been tagged
On 19 Aug 2016, at 03:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers wrote: > > 3.9.0-rc2 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r279183. > > This is a release candidate in the very real sense that if nothing new > comes up, this is be what the final release looks like. There are > currently no open release blockers, and no patches in my merge-queue. Compiled everything just fine on FreeBSD 10 now, testing went OK except for the two threadsanitizer failures (hangs) I already reported for rc1. These aren't going to fixed before the release, so I'll ignore them. Uploaded: SHA256 (clang+llvm-3.9.0-rc2-i386-unknown-freebsd10.tar.xz) = eb529244055e45d0781b4259e286b5be3b8f044e6d3e65dbf67b597441292ef4 SHA256 (clang+llvm-3.9.0-rc2-amd64-unknown-freebsd10.tar.xz) = 367ce05bea07be6697418518445c8dc5156f6dd288a4e3397ff7f17b2d009abf -Dimitry signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
[lldb-dev] [Bug 29071] New: lldb standalone build: include could not find load file: CheckAtomic
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=29071 Bug ID: 29071 Summary: lldb standalone build: include could not find load file: CheckAtomic Product: lldb Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P Component: All Bugs Assignee: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org Reporter: mgo...@gentoo.org CC: llvm-b...@lists.llvm.org Classification: Unclassified When attempting to build lldb stand-alone against installed LLVM, I'm getting the following error: CMake Error at cmake/modules/LLDBStandalone.cmake:89 (include): include could not find load file: CheckAtomic Call Stack (most recent call first): CMakeLists.txt:3 (include) It looks that it is relying on CheckAtomic.cmake that is not installed by LLVM. I guess the file should either be installed (possibly as LLVMCheckAtomic?), or a copy of it included in LLDB. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
Re: [lldb-dev] [Release-testers] [3.9 Release] Release Candidate 2 has been tagged
Le 19/08/2016 à 03:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers a écrit : Dear testers, 3.9.0-rc2 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r279183. This is a release candidate in the very real sense that if nothing new comes up, this is be what the final release looks like. There are currently no open release blockers, and no patches in my merge-queue. Please build, test, and upload binaries to the sftp. Let me know how everything goes. From this point, the branch is only open for fixing critical problems (bad enough to warrant another test cycle) and release notes. Seems to work great on Debian. https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=llvm-toolchain-3.9&suite=experimental A bit surprised to see include fixer coming in the second rc but why not. However, still the same issue on armel: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-August/103457.html Sylvestre ___ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
