Next LLVM release thoughts?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Next LLVM release thoughts?

Chris Lattner

Hi All,

It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty
of goodies for a very solid release.  Do people find releases useful, or
should we just continue to run out of CVS?  Does anyone have any thoughts?

-Chris

--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Reid Spencer
As I'm not particularly active with LLVM right now, it doesn't make any
difference to me, personally.  However, I am a strong advocate for "release
early, release often".  We had previously agreed to releases 4 times per year.
This will be the 3rd and final one this year.  Many users of LLVM only work
from release to release so it is unfair to them to let them stray very far from
the CVS "head" simply for lack of releases.

I think the improvements made to the code base over the last few months have
been VERY significant, especially on the backend.  I think the current work on
the new backend architecture should find a logical stopping point and then the
release put out after sufficient testing.

My $0.02 worth.

Reid.

Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty
> of goodies for a very solid release.  Do people find releases useful, or
> should we just continue to run out of CVS?  Does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> -Chris
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Eric van Riet Paap
In reply to this post by Chris Lattner
Hi,

We definately need regular releases because that is what distribution package
managers focus on. We need to be able to say "use LLVM 1.6 or later".  Some
linux distros as well as Fink (OSX) currently 'have LLVM 1.5 and I assume  
they will upgrade when a new release is available.

Plus I think it is a good for any development team to have these regular
deadlines. From my own projects I know there are a million things that are
not as much fun as hacking on new stuff and therefor only get done when
releases are eminent. Most of the time my mind forces these things to the
background until they can no longer be ignored.

regards,
Eric


On Tuesday 11 October 2005 07:44, Chris Lattner wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty
> of goodies for a very solid release.  Do people find releases useful, or
> should we just continue to run out of CVS?  Does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> -Chris

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Andrew Lenharth-3
In reply to this post by Chris Lattner
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 00:44 -0500, Chris Lattner wrote:
> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty
> of goodies for a very solid release.  Do people find releases useful, or
> should we just continue to run out of CVS?  Does anyone have any thoughts?

I think a release is due.  All the work on the backends since last
release is worth a release in and of itself.  Also, for those who use
this in classes, having a release before the start of spring semester or
winter quarter would be nice.

For users who use cvs, having releases of the cfe is still probably very
handy.

--
Andrew Lenharth <[hidden email]>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Bill Wendling
In reply to this post by Chris Lattner
Frequently releasing software can be a good thing. Especially when it
gets to a point where you have a stable CVS version and many new
features/bug fixes.

-bw

On 10/11/05, Chris Lattner <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi All,
>
> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have plenty
> of goodies for a very solid release.  Do people find releases useful, or
> should we just continue to run out of CVS?  Does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> -Chris
>
> --
> http://nondot.org/sabre/
> http://llvm.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Tzu-Chien Chiu
The automated tests seems not run periodically. Some builds are even
broken (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/X86-niobe/), and some
failed (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/SparcV9/).

Will there be another automated test be scheduled before the next release?


On 11/10/05, Bill Wendling <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Frequently releasing software can be a good thing. Especially when it
> gets to a point where you have a stable CVS version and many new
> features/bug fixes.
>
--
Tzu-Chien Chiu - XGI Technology, Inc.
URL: http://www.csie.nctu.edu.tw/~jwchiu/

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Vikram S. Adve-2
In reply to this post by Chris Lattner
I agree with all the reasons others have cited for continuing to have  
regular releases: it's a catalyst for many things including getting  
users to update their code, distribution mangers to update distros,  
getting "nearly-done" pieces wrapped up, and lurking problems  
identified and fixed.  In addition, it's a good excuse to spam a few  
lists with the announcement.

--Vikram
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/


On Oct 11, 2005, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:

>
> Hi All,
>
> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have  
> plenty of goodies for a very solid release.  Do people find  
> releases useful, or should we just continue to run out of CVS?  
> Does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> -Chris
>
> --
> http://nondot.org/sabre/
> http://llvm.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Tanya Lattner-2
In reply to this post by Tzu-Chien Chiu

> The automated tests seems not run periodically. Some builds are even
> broken (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/X86-niobe/), and some
> failed (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/testresults/SparcV9/).

For the build thats broken,the machine (Niobe) is probably dead. Its been
having problems for awhile.

As for the Sparc backend.. it should be running nightly tests regularly.
I'll see if I can at least get it up and running again. Do not expect any
maintenance to be done on it because it will eventually be migrated to the
new backend framework.

-Tanya

>
> Will there be another automated test be scheduled before the next release?
>
>
> On 11/10/05, Bill Wendling <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Frequently releasing software can be a good thing. Especially when it
>> gets to a point where you have a stable CVS version and many new
>> features/bug fixes.
>>
> --
> Tzu-Chien Chiu - XGI Technology, Inc.
> URL: http://www.csie.nctu.edu.tw/~jwchiu/
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Patrick Meredith
In reply to this post by Vikram S. Adve-2
Spamming lists is probably the best reason to keep releases going.  It's a
great way to find new users :)  By the way, are any distributions currently
carrying LLVM?  I couldn't find it in the Debian repositories.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Vikram S. Adve
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 10:36 AM
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Next LLVM release thoughts?

I agree with all the reasons others have cited for continuing to have  
regular releases: it's a catalyst for many things including getting  
users to update their code, distribution mangers to update distros,  
getting "nearly-done" pieces wrapped up, and lurking problems  
identified and fixed.  In addition, it's a good excuse to spam a few  
lists with the announcement.

--Vikram
http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/


On Oct 11, 2005, at 12:44 AM, Chris Lattner wrote:

>
> Hi All,
>
> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have  
> plenty of goodies for a very solid release.  Do people find  
> releases useful, or should we just continue to run out of CVS?  
> Does anyone have any thoughts?
>
> -Chris
>
> --
> http://nondot.org/sabre/
> http://llvm.org/
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

David Blaikie
> Spamming lists is probably the best reason to keep releases going.  It's a
> great way to find new users :)  By the way, are any distributions currently
> carrying LLVM?  I couldn't find it in the Debian repositories.

Debian Sid (unstable) and Slink (testing) both have LLVM 1.4 - I'm not
sure if there's a specific reason they haven't moved to 1.5 (no bugs
have been reported for this).

David

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d+@ s++: a-- C++++ ULS++ P L++ !E W++ N+ o? K? w(+) O? M@ V? PS+ PE@
Y+ PGP- t(+) 5 X+ R tv+ b+ DI++ D++ G+ e h! r y-(-)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Oleg Smolsky
In reply to this post by Chris Lattner
Hello Chris,

Chris Lattner wrote on 11/10/2005 at 6:44 p.m.:
> It has been entirely too long since the last release, and we have
> plenty of goodies for a very solid release. Do people find releases
> useful, or should we just continue to run out of CVS? Does anyone
> have any thoughts?
Yeah, I think so :) Also, it would be really nice if an official
cygwin build (the binary) was published too. I spent quite a bit of
time screwing with it a few months ago, and it was quite a bastard to
get going...

IMHO, it would be the easiest way to get some windows user playing
with llvm :)

Best regards,
Oleg.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

AaronNGray
> Also, it would be really nice if an official
> cygwin build (the binary) was published too. I spent quite a bit of
> time screwing with it a few months ago, and it was quite a bastard to
> get going...

I had quite a time with it too, could only get the debug version to build as
there seemed to be an internal problem with ld.

I would very interested in how you got it running and what GCC tool versions
you used ?

> IMHO, it would be the easiest way to get some windows user playing
> with llvm :)

Yes, but it is still limited.

Aaron

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Chris Lattner
In reply to this post by Reid Spencer
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Reid Spencer wrote:
> As I'm not particularly active with LLVM right now, it doesn't make any
> difference to me, personally.  However, I am a strong advocate for "release
> early, release often".  We had previously agreed to releases 4 times per
> year. This will be the 3rd and final one this year.  Many users of LLVM only
> work from release to release so it is unfair to them to let them stray very
> far from the CVS "head" simply for lack of releases.

Makes sense.  Somehow I expected this response from everyone :)

> I think the improvements made to the code base over the last few months have
> been VERY significant, especially on the backend.  I think the current work
> on the new backend architecture should find a logical stopping point and then
> the release put out after sufficient testing.

Absolutely.

How does this tentative plan sound: we have two more weeks of development,
then start the release processing part on about Oct 31 (spooky!).

If have some plans for things that I will do to wrap up some features in
the code generator.  It would be great if the cygwin people can figure out
what needs to be done to make cygwin work as well as possible for the
release (and when the actual release happens, making a binary cygwin
distro would be great!).  If someone wants to help start whipping
documentation (updating them as needed) and release notes (finding the
bugs fixed and major features in the release) into shape, it would be a
great help for me, otherwise I'll dive in next week.

-Chris

--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Misha Brukman-2
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 12:04:38PM -0500, Chris Lattner wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Reid Spencer wrote:
> >As I'm not particularly active with LLVM right now, it doesn't make
> >any difference to me, personally.  However, I am a strong advocate
> >for "release early, release often".  We had previously agreed to
> >releases 4 times per year. This will be the 3rd and final one this
> >year.  Many users of LLVM only work from release to release so it is
> >unfair to them to let them stray very far from the CVS "head" simply
> >for lack of releases.
>
> Makes sense.  Somehow I expected this response from everyone :)

Well, I already read a few people echo my sentiments, but since you
expect this from _everyone_, let me second what Reid and Andrew Lenharth
have said.  :)
 
> How does this tentative plan sound: we have two more weeks of
> development, then start the release processing part on about Oct 31
> (spooky!).

In that case, it needs a cool "release name".  :)
 
--
Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Chris Lattner
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Misha Brukman wrote:
>> How does this tentative plan sound: we have two more weeks of
>> development, then start the release processing part on about Oct 31
>> (spooky!).
>
> In that case, it needs a cool "release name".  :)

Suggestions welcome!

-Chris

--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.org/

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

AaronNGray
>> In that case, it needs a cool "release name".  :)
>
> Suggestions welcome!

Names of flowers are numerous but not exactly cool. I do not think any other
software project has used flower names.

Aaron

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[2]: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Oleg Smolsky
In reply to this post by AaronNGray
Hello Aaron,

Aaron Gray wrote on 14/10/2005 at 5:50 a.m.:
>> Also, it would be really nice if an official cygwin build (the
>> binary) was published too. I spent quite a bit of time screwing
>> with it a few months ago, and it was quite a bastard to get
>> going...
> I had quite a time with it too, could only get the debug version to
> build as there seemed to be an internal problem with ld.
>
> I would very interested in how you got it running and what GCC tool
> versions you used ?
OK, I've just tried building the current CVS/HEAD on cygwin using
gcc (GCC) 3.4.4 (cygming special) (gdc 0.12, using dmd 0.125):

 - llvm/make tools-only worked ok
 - llvm-gcc/make all failed with the following message (2nd try):

make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/oleg.smolsky/llvm-gcc-build/gcc'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/oleg.smolsky/llvm-gcc-build/gcc'
Checking multilib configuration...
multilib.out is unchanged
Configuring in i686-pc-cygwin/libstdc++-v3
configure: loading cache ../config.cache
checking build system type... i686-pc-cygwin
checking host system type... i686-pc-cygwin
checking target system type... i686-pc-cygwin
checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
checking whether build environment is sane... yes
checking for gawk... gawk
checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
checking for i686-pc-cygwin-gcc...  /home/oleg.smolsky/llvm-gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -
B/home/oleg.smolsky/llvm-gcc-build/gcc/ -B/pacific/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/
-B/pacific/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/lib/ -isystem /pacific/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwi
n/include -isystem /pacific/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/sys-include
checking for C compiler default output... conftest.exe
checking whether the C compiler works... configure: error: cannot run C compiled
 programs.
If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'.
See `config.log' for more details.
make: *** [configure-target-libstdc++-v3] Error 1

Best regards,
Oleg.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re[2]: Next LLVM release thoughts?

AaronNGray
Oleg,

> - llvm/make tools-only worked ok

Good.

> - llvm-gcc/make all failed with the following message (2nd try):
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/oleg.smolsky/llvm-gcc-build/gcc'
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/oleg.smolsky/llvm-gcc-build/gcc'
> Checking multilib configuration...
> multilib.out is unchanged
> Configuring in i686-pc-cygwin/libstdc++-v3
> configure: loading cache ../config.cache
> checking build system type... i686-pc-cygwin
> checking host system type... i686-pc-cygwin
> checking target system type... i686-pc-cygwin
> checking for a BSD-compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
> checking whether build environment is sane... yes
> checking for gawk... gawk
> checking whether make sets $(MAKE)... yes
> checking for i686-pc-cygwin-gcc...
> /home/oleg.smolsky/llvm-gcc-build/gcc/xgcc -
> B/home/oleg.smolsky/llvm-gcc-build/gcc/ -B/pacific/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/bin/
> -B/pacific/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/lib/ -isystem
> /pacific/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwi
> n/include -isystem /pacific/llvm-gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/sys-include
> checking for C compiler default output... conftest.exe
> checking whether the C compiler works... configure: error: cannot run C
> compiled
> programs.
> If you meant to cross compile, use `--host'.
> See `config.log' for more details.
> make: *** [configure-target-libstdc++-v3] Error 1

I am not sure but it looks like a problem with your Cygwin instillation ?

Try a 'make configure' or 'make reconfigure'.

Here's a link to the instructions I developed for building LLVM on Cygwin :-

        http://angray.members.beeb.net/llvm/MakingLLVM.html

As far as I know it should hopefully still be correct for the debug build.
It failed on the release build though due to a bug in ld, which hopefully
will be fixed with time.

Aaron

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Reid Spencer
In reply to this post by AaronNGray
Well, the subject matter for names ought to pertain to the subject matter of
the software. Since LLVM is a "Low Level" Virtual Machine, how about we use the
names of subterranean ores: granite, quartz, marble, etc.

Agan, not exactly cool, but a little better (IMO) than flowers :)

Reid.

Aaron Gray wrote:

>>> In that case, it needs a cool "release name".  :)
>>
>>
>> Suggestions welcome!
>
>
> Names of flowers are numerous but not exactly cool. I do not think any
> other software project has used flower names.
>
> Aaron
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re[4]: Next LLVM release thoughts?

Oleg Smolsky
In reply to this post by AaronNGray
Hello Aaron,

Aaron Gray wrote on 14/10/2005 at 10:22 a.m.:
> I am not sure but it looks like a problem with your Cygwin
> instillation ? Try a 'make configure' or 'make reconfigure'.
Hmmm, I was able to build llvm/tools-only.... As for "make configure" -
that didn't help.

> Here's a link to the instructions I developed for building LLVM on
> Cygwin :-
>         http://angray.members.beeb.net/llvm/MakingLLVM.html
Yes, this is a nice, simple to follow digest of the "Bootstrapping the
LLVM C/C++ frontend" document. I've got my own notes, that are
identical to it, except for the paths :) So, yes, that's what I've
been doing.

And yeah, I was able to build a version of LLVM at some state... A few
months ago, I think. Debug only, IIRC.....

Best regards,
Oleg.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
12