On 09/07/18 11:13, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi Emilio
>
> On 09/07/2018 10:37, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> #832798 is fixed now. Is that enough to get julia updated?
>
> Yes! \o/
>
>> Note that we now have llvm 5.0 and 6.0. Updating to a newer version would be
>> best as we will eventually
Hi Emilio
On 09/07/2018 10:37, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
#832798 is fixed now. Is that enough to get julia updated?
Yes! \o/
Note that we now have llvm 5.0 and 6.0. Updating to a newer version would be
best as we will eventually look at removing 4.0. But for now 4.0 would obviously
be
Hi Graham,
On 25/11/17 08:11, Graham Inggs wrote:
> On 20 November 2017 at 20:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> It should be fine now with 4.0. Would be good if this could move to either
>> unversioned llvm/clang (which defaults to 4.0 now) or to versioned 4.0.
>> Bumping
>> to serious as we
On 20 November 2017 at 20:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> It should be fine now with 4.0. Would be good if this could move to either
> unversioned llvm/clang (which defaults to 4.0 now) or to versioned 4.0.
> Bumping
> to serious as we want to remove 3.8 soon to reduce the
4 matches
Mail list logo