+ Omair
I don't really understand arm (sub)-architectures or REPL. The patch
seems mostly harmless, but it also feels like a hack to me. A couple
of questions:
- why does this only pose a problem for REPL?
- If I understand correctly, the problem is that someone is looking at
the architecture
Humm.. it's a unicode literal, not sure why it's complaining. I guess
I'll have to crack open my linux machine and see what's going on tomorrow.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 6:12 PM Todd Fiala wrote:
> I'm still getting a lot of these:
>
>
> Traceback (most recent call last):
No worries, worst case scenario a sledgehammer solution is to change all
the places where we write to the session file to convert to unicode first
(which would be a trivial conversion, since everything is going to be
ascii, which is already valid utf 8).
The reason a problem arose at all is
The test-suite shouldn't be being build with CMake for the release - the
CMake system is not yet ready. Have you accidentally checked out the
test-suite into /projects? if it's there it will auto-configure.
James
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 at 16:01 Ismail Donmez via cfe-dev <
cfe-...@lists.llvm.org>
If the test-suite setup with CMake is broken, why not replace the CMake
auto-detection of the test-suite with an error?
Something like:
diff --git a/CMakeLists.txt b/CMakeLists.txt
index d96afc465177..918da6f6c945 100644
--- a/CMakeLists.txt
+++ b/CMakeLists.txt
@@ -693,11 +693,7 @@ endif()
For your information, we have decided to extend the CFP by a few days, up
to this Friday, May 29th.
So you still have 'till the end of this week to submit a presentation,
lightning talk, poster, tutorial or BoF to the EuroLLVM 2016.
Kind regards,
--
Arnaud A. de Grandmaison
On Sun, Dec 13,
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=26322
Bug ID: 26322
Summary: Core load hangs
Product: lldb
Version: 3.8
Hardware: PC
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P
Component:
Bump. Can I re-submit this?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:54 AM Zachary Turner wrote:
> Can one of you guys try out this patch and see if it works? If so I'll
> commit it.
>
> I don't know of a way to make this "elegant". i.e. a single syntax /
> paradigm that works in both
I'm still getting a lot of these:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "test/dotest.py", line 7, in
lldbsuite.test.run_suite()
File
"/Users/tfiala/src/lldb-tot/lldb/packages/Python/lldbsuite/test/dotest.py",
line 1089, in run_suite