https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #40 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: zeising
Date: Fri Oct 4 22:15:36 UTC 2019
New revision: 513789
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/513789
Log:
MFH: r513788
Bump
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #39 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: zeising
Date: Fri Oct 4 22:14:04 UTC 2019
New revision: 513788
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/513788
Log:
Bump remaining mesa ports
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #37 from Warner Losh ---
Thanks Jan for updating Mesa. I'll see if that helps. The effects were quite
odd (mouse didn't function sometimes, scrolling broken, switching windows
caused hangs) and it took me a while to rule
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #36 from Jan Beich ---
Only Mesa because it will remain stuck on llvm80 for years due to complications
with QA and build system. I don't think anything else can affect Gnome. If you
find more regressions, please, report.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #35 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: jbeich
Date: Fri Oct 4 20:09:13 UTC 2019
New revision: 513777
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/513777
Log:
MFH: r513776
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #34 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: jbeich
Date: Fri Oct 4 20:08:28 UTC 2019
New revision: 513776
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/513776
Log:
graphics/mesa-dri: revert
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #33 from Brooks Davis ---
(In reply to Jan Beich from comment #31)
> > You are correct that some bugs won't be found until LLVM_DEFAULT is bumped,
> > but
> > doing it without coordination with me (the PR does not count) and
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #32 from Mark Linimon ---
(In reply to Jan Beich from comment #31)
> If so (i.e., related) it implies only /quarterly users run Gnome
This is a false assumption.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #31 from Jan Beich ---
(In reply to Brooks Davis from comment #28)
> You are correct that some bugs won't be found until LLVM_DEFAULT is bumped,
> but
> doing it without coordination with me (the PR does not count) and making
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #30 from Warner Losh ---
Two edits to my last message:
(1) LLVM_DEFAULT was bumped September 20th, 5 days before the port was updated
to the 9.0 release:
Author: jbeich
Date: Fri Sep 20 19:58:36 2019 +
Switch
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #29 from Warner Losh ---
Let's also look at the timeline:
September 19th: 9.0.0 was released
September 25th: llvm90 port was updated to 9.0.0 release
September 28th: LLVM_DEFAULT bumped.
3 days is too fast. It broke things
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #28 from Brooks Davis ---
(In reply to Jan Beich from comment #23)
I did prepare over the whole 9.0.0 cycle, I find your implications that I did
not offensive.
You are correct that some bugs won't be found until LLVM_DEFAULT
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #27 from Warner Losh ---
(In reply to Jan Beich from comment #25)
>(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #24)
>> when the llvm developers tell you it isn't ready, it isn't ready.
>Release happens when "the llvm developers"
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #26 from Warner Losh ---
YOU BROKE GNOME AND HAVEN'T FIXED IT.
All that other stuff is smoke and mirrors that ignores the fact this dump a big
turd into the FreeBDS pkg pool and you aren't taking responsibility for your
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #25 from Jan Beich ---
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #24)
> when the llvm developers tell you it isn't ready, it isn't ready.
Release happens when "the llvm developers" decide something "is ready" for wide
consumption.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Warner Losh changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i...@freebsd.org
--- Comment #24
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #23 from Jan Beich ---
(In reply to Brooks Davis from comment #22)
That's unfortunate. I've expected you to prepare before release. Even after
excluding time for EuroBSDCon 2019 + time for travel there was roughly 1 month
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #22 from Brooks Davis ---
I'm unhappy that this went in without giving devel/llvm90 some time to settle
after the release. Worse it was committed during a conference and I had
vacation and international flights scheduled in
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Jan Beich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|New
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Jan Beich changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://bugs.freebsd.org/bu
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Jan Beich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|240722 |
Depends on|
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Bug 239682 depends on bug 240722, which changed state.
Bug 240722 Summary: graphics/mesa-dri: llvm9 update breaks amdgpu
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240722
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
rozhuk...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||240722
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #21 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: jbeich
Date: Fri Sep 20 19:58:45 UTC 2019
New revision: 512440
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/512440
Log:
Switch default devel/llvm*
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Johannes M Dieterich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(jmd@fr |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #20 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: jmd
Date: Sun Sep 8 00:01:24 UTC 2019
New revision: 511525
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/511525
Log:
devel/oclgrind: always
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Gleb Popov changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(arrowd |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Greg V changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||greg@unrelenting.technology
--- Comment
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #18 from Jan Beich ---
(In reply to Mark Linimon from comment #17)
Runtime. Loading more than one libLLVM.so version can lead to crashes. A
consumer cannot block other consumers from switching. If only one devel/llvm
existed
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #17 from Mark Linimon ---
(In reply to Jan Beich from comment #0)
> Those not ready by release to stop using LLVM_DEFAULT or be marked BROKEN.
I don't understand why we would desire to mark them BROKEN. This seems like a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Mohammad S. Babaei changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(info@b |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #16 from Mohammad S. Babaei ---
editors/jucipp passes all the following tests with LLVM90 just fine:
make stage
make stage-qa
make check-orphans
make package
make install
make deinstall
make
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #14 from Jan Beich ---
(In reply to Henry Hu from comment #13)
> We can make it use the default LLVM version with this patch:
Already proposed and landed as part of bug 232598.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Henry Hu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(henry. |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #12 from Jan Beich ---
(In reply to Mohammad S. Babaei from comment #10)
See bug 233723.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #11 from Mohammad S. Babaei ---
I have to mention I also did
$ cat /etc/make.conf
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=python=3.6
But it does not change anything.
But, if I do
$ cat /etc/make.conf
DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=python=3.6
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #10 from Mohammad S. Babaei ---
At the moment I do not have a FreeBSD workstation. So, I did setup a new
FreeBSD VM and modified editors/jucipp port to rely on LLVM90. Now, I am
getting the following weird error:
# Created by:
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Christoph Moench-Tegeder changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(cmt@fr |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #9 from Gleb Popov ---
KLEE supports 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0 as of now. Upstream is known to lag behind
newest LLVM releases.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #8 from Jan Beich ---
(In reply to Gleb Popov from comment #7)
> much easier to fix KLEE dependency to llvm80 instead of LLVM_DEFAULT.
The patch in review D21172 already does. Unless the port supports only one LLVM
version
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #7 from Gleb Popov ---
(In reply to Jan Beich from comment #6)
I've done that, but I believe it's much easier to fix KLEE dependency to llvm80
instead of LLVM_DEFAULT.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #6 from Jan Beich ---
(In reply to Gleb Popov from comment #5)
Report https://reviews.freebsd.org/P291 upstream, update or cherry pick the fix
and test.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #5 from Gleb Popov ---
What's required from me?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
freebsd-gecko@freebsd.org mailing list
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #4 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: tobik
Date: Thu Aug 8 11:42:06 UTC 2019
New revision: 508373
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/508373
Log:
security/afl++: Update to
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Ashish SHUKLA changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(ashish |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Santhosh Raju changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(santho |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Tobias Kortkamp changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(tobik@ |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
--- Comment #1 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: tobik
Date: Wed Aug 7 08:47:31 UTC 2019
New revision: 508301
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/508301
Log:
devel/ccls: Update to latest
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Jan Beich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(jbeich |maintainer-feedback+
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
Jan Beich changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|maintainer-feedback?(brooks |maintainer-feedback?(arrowd
Jan Beich has asked freebsd-gecko mailing list
for maintainer-feedback:
Bug 239682: Default to devel/llvm90 when libLLVM/libclang are required or if
/usr/bin/clang is not enough
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239682
___
51 matches
Mail list logo
