Hi,
On 2020-05-27 07:49:45 -0700, Jesse Zhang wrote:
> On the mensiversary of the last response, what can I do to help move
> this along (aside from heeding the advice "don't use LLVM HEAD")?
Sorry, I had looked at it at point with the intent to commit it, and hit
some stupid small snags (*). And
On 2020-05-28 17:07:46 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please note that I would still wait for their next GA release to plug
> in any extra holes at the same time. @Jesse: or is this change
> actually part of the upcoming 10.0.1?
Why? I plan to just commit this change now.
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 1:07 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Please note that I would still wait for their next GA release to plug
> in any extra holes at the same time. @Jesse: or is this change
> actually part of the upcoming 10.0.1?
No a refactoring like this was not in the back branches (nor is
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 07:49:45AM -0700, Jesse Zhang wrote:
> For bystanders: Andres and I argued for "fixing this sooner and
> backpatch" and Michael suggested "wait longer and whack all moles". We
> have waited, and there seems to be only one mole (finding all dead
> unbroken "include"s was left
Hi Andres,
On the mensiversary of the last response, what can I do to help move
this along (aside from heeding the advice "don't use LLVM HEAD")?
Michael Paquier expressed concerns over flippant churn upthread:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:19 PM Andres Freund wrote:
AF> On 2020-04-28 13:56:23 +0900
Hi Michael,
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 9:56 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> rather soon, it looks like LLVM releases a new major version every 3
> months or so.
FYI LLVM has a six-month release cadence [1], the next release is
expected coming September (I can't tell whether you were joking).
Cheers,
Je
Hi,
On 2020-04-28 13:56:23 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:48:54AM -0700, Jesse Zhang wrote:
> > Are you expressing a concern against "churning" this part of the code in
> > reaction to upstream LLVM changes? I'd agree with you in general. But
> > then the question we ne
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 07:48:54AM -0700, Jesse Zhang wrote:
> Are you expressing a concern against "churning" this part of the code in
> reaction to upstream LLVM changes? I'd agree with you in general. But
> then the question we need to ask is "will we need to revert this 3 weeks
> from now if up
Hi Michael,
On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:21 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 09:41:20PM -0700, Jesse Zhang wrote:
> > I searched my inbox and the archive, strange that nobody else is seeing
> > this.
> >
> > Turns out that LLVM has recently removed "llvm/IR/CallSite.h" in
> > (
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 09:41:20PM -0700, Jesse Zhang wrote:
> I searched my inbox and the archive, strange that nobody else is seeing
> this.
>
> Turns out that LLVM has recently removed "llvm/IR/CallSite.h" in
> (unreleased) version 11 [1][2]. To fix the build I tried conditionally
> (on LLVM_VE
Hi hackers,
My local build of master started failing last night with this error:
llvmjit_inline.cpp:59:10: fatal error: 'llvm/IR/CallSite.h' file not found
#include
^~~~
I searched my inbox and the archive, strange that nobody else is seeing
this.
Turns out that LLVM h
11 matches
Mail list logo
