Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||||||||
LLVM 3.2 released
LLVM Fans, LLVM 3.2 is done!! Get it here: http://llvm.org/releases/ or read about it: http://llvm.org/releases/3.2/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Despite only it being a bit over 6 months of development since 3.1, LLVM 3.2 is a huge leap, delivering a wide range of improvements and new features. Clang now includes industry-leading C++'11 support, improved diagnostics, C11 and Objective-C improvements (including "ObjC literals" support), and the Clang static analyzer now has the ability to do inter-procedural (cross- function) analysis along with improved Objective-C support. LLVM 3.2 now includes an (early in development) auto-vectorizer, and includes tuning support for several new ARM CPU variants, code generation support for the NVIDIA PTX virtual ISA, a significantly improved SROA pass, improvements in AVX2 support in X86 CPUs, major leaps in the MIPS backend (including integrated assembler and disassembler support), dramatic improvements to ELF PowerPC64 support, LLDB is now a rock solid debugger on Mac OS X, and an uncountable number of bug fixes and other minor improvements has landed in this release. For more details, please see the full release notes linked above. This release would not be possible without our volunteer release team! Thanks to our amazing new release manager Paweł Wodnicki, as well as Nikola Smiljanic, Nakamura Takumi, Duncan Sands and Bill Wendling for their work to qualify and shepherd the release. If you have questions or comments about this release, please contact the LLVMdev mailing list! Onward to LLVM 3.3! -Chris LLVM 3.1 Release Announcement: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-announce/2012-May... _______________________________________________ llvm-announce mailing list llvm-announce@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-announce (Log in to post comments)
LLVM 3.2 released Posted Dec 21, 2012 16:53 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]
Does anyone here know of a good PPA for those?
LLVM 3.2 released Posted Dec 21, 2012 20:58 UTC (Fri) by bredelings (subscriber, #53082) [Link]
They are in Debian experimental. They might work for Ubuntu, I don't know.
LLVM 3.2 released Posted Dec 22, 2012 1:11 UTC (Sat) by dankamongmen (subscriber, #35141) [Link]
[skynet](100) $ apt-get source llvm-3.2
Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done NOTICE: 'llvm-3.2' packaging is maintained in the 'Svn' version control system at: svn://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-llvm/llvm/trunk/ Need to get 9,428 kB of source archives. Get:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ sid/main llvm-3.2 3.2-1 (dsc) [1,988 B] Get:2 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ sid/main llvm-3.2 3.2-1 (tar) [9,402 kB]
looks like they're in debian unstable to me.
LLVM 3.2 released Posted Dec 23, 2012 8:56 UTC (Sun) by sylvestre (subscriber, #57054) [Link]
LLVM & Clang 3.2 are in Ubuntu raring.
They are directly sync from Debian, so, they should work.
LLVM 3.2 released Posted Dec 22, 2012 6:40 UTC (Sat) by pjdc (subscriber, #6906) [Link]
It's in raring, i.e. the upcoming 13.04 release: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-3.2
The PPAs listed on that page don't appear to have caught up, and in any case don't look like they're intended for folks who just want fresh LLVM.
If you're comfortable with programming and/or general system administration, backporting packages for upload to a PPA is generally not too difficult.
https://help.launchpad.net/Packaging/PPA/BuildingASourceP...
Why Binaries? Posted Dec 22, 2012 22:33 UTC (Sat) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Binaries, Shminaries!! Why not compile from source code? It took me about one hour to do so (both LLVM and Clang) on a 32-bit Centrino Duo 1.6GHz laptop. And, since I had the previous version installed (also from source), I was able to compile LLVM and Clang with... LLVM and Clang. Self-hosting compilers FTW! </silly Saturday afternoon comment> ;-)
Why Binaries? Posted Dec 23, 2012 13:09 UTC (Sun) by fjf33 (subscriber, #5768) [Link]
But then you have to compile twice. Once with the old compiler and then again with the new one.
Why Binaries? Posted Dec 23, 2012 14:13 UTC (Sun) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] And I did just that. Hey, I've got two hours to spare on a Saturday afternoon. :)
Why Binaries? Posted Jan 6, 2013 2:55 UTC (Sun) by nickbp (subscriber, #63605) [Link]
I hope you didn't forget to funroll all your loops in the process.
Clang has loop funrolling, right?
Why Binaries? Posted Jan 9, 2013 15:53 UTC (Wed) by hpro (subscriber, #74751) [Link]
funrolling; a non-copyright infringing name for the unexpected showing of a eighties music video.
|
|||||||||||||||||||