Sorry the stupid question as this may be documented somewhere?
"OpenMP run-time included in packages targeting i386 and x86_64 Linux,
x86_64 FreeBSD, and Darwin."
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 precise
Hello everyone,
Source, binaries and documentation for LLVM-3.8.0-rc2 is now available
at http://llvm.org/pre-releases/3.8.0/#rc2
Please try them out, run tests, build your favourite projects, and
*file bugs* about anything that doesn't work and needs to be fixed for
the release. Please CC me on
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> Release Candidate 2 has just been tagged [1]. Please build, test, and
> upload to the sftp.
Windows binaries are up: (sha1 sums)
23e18a4af76bed48ca8975a1b90b53b960508964 LLVM-3.8.0-rc2-win32.exe
87174857cdf76ac99b610672a3f721e4df300dda LLVM
Thanks Pavel, yeah, that's what I figured out yesterday.
In "So now Destroy starts destroying the process while it is just being
*started up* and things go south", for "started up", I assume you mean
inferior is not *continued/resumed* from first entry point breakpoint,
right? The inferior is defin
Hi Greg
Please find any answers/queries inlined:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:58 PM, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 2:24 AM, Pavel Labath via lldb-dev <
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 4 February 2016 at 10:04, Ravitheja Addepally
>> wrot
Fedora looks OK, openSUSE not so much, check gets stuck at 90% on x64 but
test suite passes OK, on x86 build succeeds but test suite fails saying
'import spec' no module found.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Daniel Sanders via Release-testers <
release-test...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Here's the
Here's the status for my builds so far.
clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc2-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz (sha1sum:
2b546efa5bab19d6711771ef31711d07b4a3f23f)
Native:
All ok
Cross compiling to various MIPS targets:
16 out of 23 configs passed
1 ou
On 5 February 2016 at 05:09, Jeffrey Tan via lldb-dev
wrote:
> After adding some logging I figured out that the race condition is caused by
> process.Continue() did not guarantee process has been really resumed yet in
> async mode, so the second wait_for_process_stop() is skipped immediately to
>
