SixWeining wrote:
This will be reverted in main branch
(https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92584). So close it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88891
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/SixWeining closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88891
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/tstellar closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92293
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
Author: John Ericson
Date: 2024-05-17T16:26:37-07:00
New Revision: 48c1364200b5649dda2f9ccbe382b0bd908b99de
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/48c1364200b5649dda2f9ccbe382b0bd908b99de
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/48c1364200b5649dda2f9ccbe382b0bd908b99de.diff
dpaoliello wrote:
> @dpaoliello (or anyone else). If you would like to add a note about this fix
> in the release notes (completely optional). Please reply to this comment with
> a one or two sentence description of the fix. When you are done, please add
> the release:note label to this PR.
brad0 wrote:
> Thanks, both of you. I can't merge these, so I am guessing someone else will
> come along that can?
The RE manager does. This release cycle being tsteller.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601
___
llvm-branch-commits
Ericson2314 wrote:
Thanks, both of you. I can't merge these, so I am guessing someone else will
come along that can?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/brad0 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92293
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
tstellar wrote:
@brad0 Can you look at #92293 too?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/brad0 approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
Ericson2314 wrote:
(FWIW https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601 is somewhat a companion
backport.)
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92293
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxxabi
@llvm/pr-subscribers-libcxx
Author: None (llvmbot)
Changes
Backport af7467c
Requested by: @Ericson2314
---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601.diff
3 Files Affected:
- (modified) libcxx/src/atomic.cpp (+14-2)
-
llvmbot wrote:
@brad0 What do you think about merging this PR to the release branch?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/llvmbot milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/llvmbot created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92601
Backport af7467c
Requested by: @Ericson2314
>From 472f75ba1cd626b92bf2b10099626717fcd58e29 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Ericson
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 16:49:04 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [libcxx][libcxxabi]
https://github.com/tstellar demilestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/88891
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/tstellar closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92468
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
Author: DianQK
Date: 2024-05-17T13:50:38-07:00
New Revision: 3d0752b9492efd60e85aedec79676596af6fb4f8
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3d0752b9492efd60e85aedec79676596af6fb4f8
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/3d0752b9492efd60e85aedec79676596af6fb4f8.diff
LOG:
topperc wrote:
> @topperc (or anyone else). If you would like to add a note about this fix in
> the release notes (completely optional). Please reply to this comment with a
> one or two sentence description of the fix. When you are done, please add the
> release:note label to this PR.
https://github.com/tstellar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92468
>From 3d0752b9492efd60e85aedec79676596af6fb4f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: DianQK
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 05:51:49 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] [GlobalOpt] Don't replace aliasee with alias that has weak
linkage
tstellar wrote:
Merged: 6456ebbc18a6c2eaa2d7f6cfb7b2e5938e2daf7a
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91096
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://github.com/tstellar closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91096
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
DianQK wrote:
> > Per [#91483
> > (comment)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91483#issuecomment-2116394616),
> > we still need to further investigate this issue, but it won't stop us from
> > backporting it.
> > cc @MaskRay
>
> What exactly does this mean? Was there a bug in the
tstellar wrote:
@dpaoliello (or anyone else). If you would like to add a note about this fix in
the release notes (completely optional). Please reply to this comment with a
one or two sentence description of the fix. When you are done, please add the
release:note label to this PR.
https://github.com/tstellar closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92580
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
Author: Eli Friedman
Date: 2024-05-17T13:35:09-07:00
New Revision: 92087868d5d291464056066f3e193eca97621514
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/92087868d5d291464056066f3e193eca97621514
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/92087868d5d291464056066f3e193eca97621514.diff
Author: Eli Friedman
Date: 2024-05-17T13:35:09-07:00
New Revision: bee6966d8efa18041e2e228c3bb7b09c4618677b
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/bee6966d8efa18041e2e228c3bb7b09c4618677b
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/bee6966d8efa18041e2e228c3bb7b09c4618677b.diff
https://github.com/tstellar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92580
>From bee6966d8efa18041e2e228c3bb7b09c4618677b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eli Friedman
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:06:11 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [Arm64EC] Improve alignment mangling in arm64ec thunks.
https://github.com/tstellar closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92258
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/tstellar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92258
>From 6456ebbc18a6c2eaa2d7f6cfb7b2e5938e2daf7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Stellard
Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 06:08:29 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [workflows] Fix libclang-abi-tests to work with new version
tstellar wrote:
cc @epsilon-0
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92293
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
tstellar wrote:
> Per [#91483
> (comment)](https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/91483#issuecomment-2116394616),
> we still need to further investigate this issue, but it won't stop us from
> backporting it.
>
> cc @MaskRay
What exactly does this mean? Was there a bug in the original
tstellar wrote:
@topperc (or anyone else). If you would like to add a note about this fix in
the release notes (completely optional). Please reply to this comment with a
one or two sentence description of the fix. When you are done, please add the
release:note label to this PR.
https://github.com/tstellar closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92143
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
Author: Craig Topper
Date: 2024-05-17T13:22:27-07:00
New Revision: a7cd0c61123889a632ceea67dc8c8e2c8753ae08
URL:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a7cd0c61123889a632ceea67dc8c8e2c8753ae08
DIFF:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a7cd0c61123889a632ceea67dc8c8e2c8753ae08.diff
https://github.com/tstellar updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92143
>From a7cd0c61123889a632ceea67dc8c8e2c8753ae08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Craig Topper
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 12:27:05 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] [RISCV] Add a unaligned-scalar-mem feature like we had in
clang
https://github.com/efriedma-quic approved this pull request.
LGTM
This only affects Arm64EC targets, the fixes are relatively small, and this
affects correctness of generated thunks.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92580
___
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-aarch64
Author: Daniel Paoliello (dpaoliello)
Changes
Backports !90115 and !92326
Release notes:
Fixes issues where LLVM is either generating the incorrect thunk for a function
with aligned parameters or didn't correctly pass through the
https://github.com/dpaoliello created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92580
Backports !90115 and !92326
Release notes:
Fixes issues where LLVM is either generating the incorrect thunk for a function
with aligned parameters or didn't correctly pass through the return value when
https://github.com/dpaoliello milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92580
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
preames wrote:
I'm fine with this approach. No strong opinion either way, but definitely
don't let me previous comments be blocking here.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92143
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
skatrak wrote:
Here's a link to the RFC about this proposal, with links to all related PRs:
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-clause-based-representation-of-openmp-dialect-operations/79053
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92519
___
https://github.com/AtariDreams closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92479
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
nikic wrote:
The approach looks reasonable to me.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92143
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/nikic requested changes to this pull request.
There are test failures.
Generally I don't have enough confidence in this change for a last-minute
backport.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92479
___
llvm-branch-commits
skatrak wrote:
> I like the idea, but also have some questions:
>
> 1. How does an operation definition look like with all its clauses
> defined? Does it have to be repeated for each operation supporting the same
> clause(s)?
You can see how things would look like in #92523, but I can
Meinersbur wrote:
I like the idea, but also have some questions:
1. How does an operation definition look like with all its clauses defined?
Does it have to be repeated for each operation supporting the same clause(s)?
2. It seems this requires all properties of a clause specified in its
kiranchandramohan wrote:
@skatrak Could you copy the summary of the patch and create an RFC?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92519
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-fir-hlfir
@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-openmp
Author: Sergio Afonso (skatrak)
Changes
This patch applies fixes after the updates to OpenMP clause operands, as well
as updating some tests that were impacted by changes to the ordering or
assembly
https://github.com/skatrak created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92524
This patch applies fixes after the updates to OpenMP clause operands, as well
as updating some tests that were impacted by changes to the ordering or
assembly format of some clauses in MLIR.
>From
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir-llvm
Author: Sergio Afonso (skatrak)
Changes
This patch updates `OpenMP_Op` definitions to be based on the new set of
`OpenMP_Clause` definitions, and to take advantage of clause-based
automatically-generated argument lists, descriptions,
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir
Author: Sergio Afonso (skatrak)
Changes
This patch updates `OpenMP_Op` definitions to be based on the new set of
`OpenMP_Clause` definitions, and to take advantage of clause-based
automatically-generated argument lists, descriptions, assembly
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-openmp
Author: Sergio Afonso (skatrak)
Changes
This patch updates `OpenMP_Op` definitions to be based on the new set of
`OpenMP_Clause` definitions, and to take advantage of clause-based
automatically-generated argument lists, descriptions,
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir
Author: Sergio Afonso (skatrak)
Changes
This patch adds a new tablegen file for the OpenMP dialect containing the list
of clauses currently supported.
---
Patch is 44.02 KiB, truncated to 20.00 KiB below, full version:
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir-openmp
Author: Sergio Afonso (skatrak)
Changes
This patch adds a new tablegen file for the OpenMP dialect containing the list
of clauses currently supported.
---
Patch is 44.02 KiB, truncated to 20.00 KiB below, full version:
https://github.com/skatrak created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92521
This patch adds a new tablegen file for the OpenMP dialect containing the list
of clauses currently supported.
>From e1aa6cb890dfc8f7f03fade845cff45a163201ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergio Afonso
Date:
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-flang-openmp
@llvm/pr-subscribers-mlir
Author: Sergio Afonso (skatrak)
Changes
Currently, OpenMP operations are defined independently of each other. However,
one property of the OpenMP specification is that many clauses can be applied to
multiple
https://github.com/skatrak created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92519
Currently, OpenMP operations are defined independently of each other. However,
one property of the OpenMP specification is that many clauses can be applied to
multiple constructs.
Keeping the MLIR
https://github.com/lukel97 approved this pull request.
Chiming in that this seems reasonable to me, given the performance impact of
not having unaligned scalar accesses. And hopefully we can remove this one
we're settled on a proper interface.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92143
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-modules
Author: Chuanqi Xu (ChuanqiXu9)
Changes
Following of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92085.
motivation
The motivation is still cutting of the unnecessary change in the dependency
chain. See the above link (recursively)
https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92511
Following of https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92085.
motivation
The motivation is still cutting of the unnecessary change in the dependency
chain. See the above link (recursively) for
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-aarch64
Author: Igor Kudrin (igorkudrin)
Changes
`AArch64PAuth::checkAuthenticatedRegister()` splits the basic block containing
the tail call instruction to add check instructions, assuming at least one more
instruction before the call. This
https://github.com/igorkudrin created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/92508
`AArch64PAuth::checkAuthenticatedRegister()` splits the basic block containing
the tail call instruction to add check instructions, assuming at least one more
instruction before the call. This assumption is
63 matches
Mail list logo
