Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

+1. On 06/30/2016 04:01 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: - Original Message - From: "Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev" To: "Chandler Carruth" Cc: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" , "openmp-dev (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" , "LLDB" Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 5:34:13 PM Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] FY

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 6:05 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev > wrote: > > > > From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.go...@linaro.org] > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 4:15 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: Clang Dev; LLDB Dev; LLVM Dev; Reid Kleckner; > llvm-foundat...@lists.llvm.org > Subject: RE: [c

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.go...@linaro.org] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 4:15 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: Clang Dev; LLDB Dev; LLVM Dev; Reid Kleckner; llvm-foundat...@lists.llvm.org Subject: RE: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook On 30 Jun 2016 10:20 p.m., "Robinson

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev > wrote: > > > On 30 Jun 2016 10:20 p.m., "Robinson, Paul" > wrote: > > We've since stopped creating the tags, and gotten used to not having > > them. We do the 'rev-list --count' trick which mainly gets

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

On 30 Jun 2016 10:20 p.m., "Robinson, Paul" wrote: > We've since stopped creating the tags, and gotten used to not having > them. We do the 'rev-list --count' trick which mainly gets recorded as > one component of the version number, and it has been working for us. Does that work for sub modules

Re: [lldb-dev] compile failure with VS 2015 Update 3

So without declspec(align(8)) was this a silent codegen bug in update 2? Despite the error message, I don't think this happens on a pass by value, as std atomic is not copyable On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:49 PM Reid Kleckner via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Right, the x86_32 calling

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

- Original Message - > From: "Aaron Ballman via cfe-dev" > To: "Chandler Carruth" > Cc: "llvm-dev" , "cfe-dev" , > "openmp-dev > (openmp-...@lists.llvm.org)" , "LLDB" > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 5:34:13 PM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code o

Re: [lldb-dev] compile failure with VS 2015 Update 3

Right, the x86_32 calling convention that MSVC uses fails to align such objects, and this is the error you get if you try. VS 2015 update 3 probably added __declspec(align(8)) to std::atomic<__int64>, triggering this error if you pass one or an object that contains one by value. On Thu, Jun 30, 20

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

I guess the point is that, for some, not having that clause, causes discomfort and reduce their contribution. For others, having that clause causes discomfort and reduce their contribution. I don't think one is more important than the other, nor I think we should see this as which side makes more

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Jim Rowan wrote: > I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” — > Sorry, it's a reference to what is usually the last clause in some set of proscribed or allowed behavior in a law, because they are usually vague. IE You will get in trouble if you

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

I don’t know what you meant to imply by “residual clause” — if you meant “it’s not particularly important”, then I suggest it is left out entirely. Apparently at least a few of us have interpreted it to say “the committee reserves the right to kick you out for any behaviour that violates our

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

Thank you for your continuing efforts on the Code of Conduct! I appreciate the efforts and strongly support this direction. ~Aaron On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Chandler Carruth via cfe-dev wrote: > Hello folks, > > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of > disc

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

On Jun 30, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev wrote: (talking about lots of tags) > I don't know that it really scales well when you > are talking about (long term) hundreds of thousands of them. I can say from experience that it does not scale well.After some time, everyone w

Re: [lldb-dev] compile failure with VS 2015 Update 3

I left out some words. I meant: The answers on that StackOverflow question claim that 32-bit MSVC never does more than 32-byte alignment *for parameters*. On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:12 PM, Adrian McCarthy wrote: > `default_stop_addr` is an `Address` which contains a > `std::atomic`. The `addr_

Re: [lldb-dev] compile failure with VS 2015 Update 3

`default_stop_addr` is an `Address` which contains a `std::atomic`. The `addr_t` is a 64-bit value, so I assume it needs 64-bit alignment. The answers on that StackOverflow question claim that 32-bit MSVC never does more than 32-byte alignment. So my guess is that this has always been a problem,

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

That's just a residual clause. It's not sanely possible to enumerate all the possibilities here (IE if you stalk and murder someone in the llvm community, you are going to get kicked out of the community, regardless of if you did it in a controlled space) I mean, i'm subject to legal ethics rules t

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

Likewise. The clearly stated intended consequences are well worth promoting, and any unintended consequences can be addressed with good judgement and ongoing revision. Thank you for your efforts to make sure LLVM remains friendly and inclusive. Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com

Re: [lldb-dev] compile failure with VS 2015 Update 3

32-bit. From: Adrian McCarthy [amcca...@google.com] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 5:36 PM To: Philippe Lavoie Cc: lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [lldb-dev] compile failure with VS 2015 Update 3 Compiling for 32-bit or 64-bit? This question looks relevant:

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

I expect Rafael's concern is because the code also says: In addition, violations of this code outside these spaces may, in rare cases, affect a person's ability to participate within them. So it can apply outside spaces explicitly sponsored by LLVM, in undefined circumstances. --paulr From: cfe

Re: [lldb-dev] compile failure with VS 2015 Update 3

Compiling for 32-bit or 64-bit? This question looks relevant: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/21743144/using-stdatomic-with-aligned-classes On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Philippe Lavoie via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello, > > has anyone tried to compile LLDB with Visual

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

> -Original Message- > From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-boun...@lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Renato > Golin via cfe-dev > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:49 AM > To: Reid Kleckner > Cc: LLVM Dev; llvm-foundat...@lists.llvm.org; Clang Dev; LLDB Dev > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [lldb-dev] [llvm-de

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

Thanks, Chandler, for all your work on this. I’m glad to see this moving forward. -Jim > On Jun 30, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > wrote: > > Hello folks, > > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of > discussions about establishing a code-o

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > I am strongly opposed to it as it stands. > > Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of > conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in > channels not related to llvm at all. > > errr, it says

Re: [lldb-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

Thanks a lot for spearheading this and seeing it move forward. It's absolutely appreciated. Thank you. -eric On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:23 PM Chandler Carruth via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello folks, > > As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

I am strongly opposed to it as it stands. Who decided this and with what authority? As written the code of conduct tries restrict the acceptable opinions one may voice even in channels not related to llvm at all. With this in place I will not consider myself a member of the llvm community anymore

[lldb-dev] compile failure with VS 2015 Update 3

Hello, has anyone tried to compile LLDB with Visual Studio 2015 Update 3 ? It compiles fine with Update 2, but with Update 3 we get error messages like: D:\dev\llvm\tools\lldb\include\lldb/Target/Process.h(3194): error C2719: 'default_stop_addr': formal parameter with requested alignment

Re: [lldb-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:18 PM C Bergström wrote: > So discussion has been beaten to death and based on your comments - it > seems you anticipate strong support. > I think there has been explicit strong support on the threads. > Is any (in)formal vote planned? Will this just get enacted, "wh

Re: [lldb-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

So discussion has been beaten to death and based on your comments - it seems you anticipate strong support. Is any (in)formal vote planned? Will this just get enacted, "who" decided.. On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Chandler Carruth via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello folks, >

[lldb-dev] FYI: Landing the initial draft for an LLVM Code of Conduct

Hello folks, As mentioned some time ago[1], we’ve had a long (looong) series of discussions about establishing a code-of-conduct for the LLVM project as a whole over on the llvm-dev thread and the http://reviews.llvm.org/D13741 code review. The discussion has largely died down for some time,

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

I assumed we want ids for the umbrella repository to ease bisection and having something to print as a version identifier, but do we really need them for the other repositories? I also still don't see why `git rev-list --count --all` does not work. Sure the count is only per branch, but why wou

Re: [lldb-dev] Inquiry about Error codes sent by lldb-server

Note this isn't something we made up... In the gdb remote protocol spec, it says: The error response returned for some packets includes a two character error number. That number is not well defined. I think they are just meant to be useful for debugging a particular gdb-remote protocol server

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

On 30 June 2016 at 16:23, Frédéric Riss wrote: >> The only thing we *have* to have a sequential number for, are >> releases. Even that can be ran manually. > > LNT and ‘llvmlab bisect’ also currently rely heavily on having sequential > numbers as commit identifiers. One of the steps of the migra

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

On 30 June 2016 at 17:33, Reid Kleckner wrote: > Agreed, the llvm-project repository can completely take on the role of the > SQL database in Renato's proposal. Hum, doing it in a separate server was suggested by the GitHub folks, so I just assumed they can't do that in the umbrella project for s

Re: [lldb-dev] Inquiry about Error codes sent by lldb-server

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 5:28 AM, Ravitheja Addepally via lldb-dev > wrote: > > Hello, > The lldb-server sends hard coded values like 0x78 etc in case of error, > so does the ProcessGDBRemote use these numbers anyway except for just > detecting error ? ( in my understanding it doesn't seem

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:16 AM, James Y Knight via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think we should do any of that. It's too complicated -- and I > don't see the reason to even do it. > > There's a need for the "llvm-project" repository -- that's been discussed > plenty -- but

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

I don't think we should do any of that. It's too complicated -- and I don't see the reason to even do it. There's a need for the "llvm-project" repository -- that's been discussed plenty -- but where does the need for a separate "id" that must be pushed into all of the sub-projects come from? This

Re: [lldb-dev] [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 1:26 AM, Renato Golin via cfe-dev > wrote: > > On 30 June 2016 at 05:14, Tim Northover wrote: >>> That makes it fragile, and that’s why I disagree with your “90% done” >>> assessment. >>> What if the service behing the hook is down for a few days? >> >> In the long-term

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

On 6/30/2016 7:43 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > Given the nature of our project's repository structure, triggers in > each repository can't just update their own sequential ID (like > Gerrit) because we want a sequence in order for the whole project, not > just each component. But it's cle

[lldb-dev] Inquiry about Error codes sent by lldb-server

Hello, The lldb-server sends hard coded values like 0x78 etc in case of error, so does the ProcessGDBRemote use these numbers anyway except for just detecting error ? ( in my understanding it doesn't seem to use the value of the number please correct me if i am wrong ). Is there some special

[lldb-dev] Sequential ID Git hook

Now that we seem to be converging to an acceptable Git model, there was only one remaining doubt, and that's how the trigger to update a sequential ID will work. I've been in contact with GitHub folks, and this is in line with their suggestions... Given the nature of our project's repository struc

[lldb-dev] [Bug 28354] TestTemplateIntegerArgs.py fails with gcc

https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28354 lab...@google.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org |clayb...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from lab..

Re: [lldb-dev] [llvm-dev] Git Move: GitHub+modules proposal

On 30 June 2016 at 05:14, Tim Northover wrote: >> That makes it fragile, and that’s why I disagree with your “90% done” >> assessment. >> What if the service behing the hook is down for a few days? > > In the long-term view, a pretty trivial catch-up script ought to be > able to synthesize a sane