summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/llvm/docs/Proposals
Commit message (Collapse)AuthorAgeFilesLines
* VariableName doc: fix the link to the mozilla docSylvestre Ledru2019-12-241-1/+1
|
* Fix the spelling of my name.Joerg Sonnenberger2019-10-071-1/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 373980
* Add a proposal for a libc project under the LLVM umbrella.Siva Chandra2019-08-151-0/+125
| | | | | | | | | | | | Reviewers: chandlerc, dlj, echristo, hfinkel, jfb, zturner Subscribers: dexonsmith, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64939 llvm-svn: 369012
* docs/GithubMove.rst: Add link to GitHub migration status pageTom Stellard2019-07-121-0/+7
| | | | llvm-svn: 365865
* docs/GithubMove.rst: Remove obsolete informationTom Stellard2019-07-101-357/+36
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Summary: Remove references to the multirepo and update the document to reflect the current state of the github repository. Reviewers: mehdi_amini, jyknight Subscribers: jdoerfert, llvm-commits Tags: #llvm Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D58420 llvm-svn: 365645
* [Documentation] Proposal to change variable namesMichael Platings2019-03-281-0/+399
| | | | | | Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59251 llvm-svn: 357174
* Test commit: fix typoRonald Wampler2019-03-261-1/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 356999
* Add recipes for migrating downstream branches of git mirrorsDavid Greene2019-02-111-0/+534
| | | | | | | | | | Add some common recipes for downstream users developing on top of the existing git mirrors. These instructions show how to migrate local branches to the monorepo. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D56550 llvm-svn: 353713
* Remove misleading line about git's lack of revision numbers.Erich Keane2019-01-161-3/+1
| | | | | Change-Id: I8a22cb4b4bef9bceee1f43381435d664c2cfd770 llvm-svn: 351357
* [docs] Add C++ Performance Benchmark to test-suite proposals.Michael Kruse2018-11-211-0/+4
| | | | llvm-svn: 347369
* [docs] Add rawspeed to test-suite proposals.Michael Kruse2018-10-241-0/+7
| | | | | | | rawspeed was suggested by Simon Pilgrim and Roman Lebedev in llvm.org/PR34216 and reviews.llvm.org/D46714. llvm-svn: 345166
* [test-suite/doc] Add list of programs we might add.Michael Kruse2018-10-231-0/+310
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Add a list of benchmarks, applications and algorithms which are under discussion to be added to the test-suite. The initial list includes the the benchmarks mentioned at https://llvm.org/PR34216, missing SPEC benchmarks, some image processing algorithms and a few others. The bug tracker only allows adding to the discussion, not removing, commenting, adding details to individual benchmarks. The first proposal was to add these benchmark into the test-suite repository, but after a discussion, adding it to llvm/docs/Proposals seem more appropriate. One advantage is that llvm.org will have a browsable web page with these suggestions. Suggested-by: Hal Finkel Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D46714 llvm-svn: 345074
* remove unreferenced footnotesTim Hammerquist2018-01-051-1/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 321840
* [LV] Model masking in VPlan, introducing VPInstructionsGil Rapaport2017-11-201-2/+67
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This patch adds a new abstraction layer to VPlan and leverages it to model the planned instructions that manipulate masks (AND, OR, NOT), introduced during predication. The new VPValue and VPUser classes model how data flows into, through and out of a VPlan, forming the vertices of a planned Def-Use graph. The new VPInstruction class is a generic single-instruction Recipe that models a planned instruction along with its opcode, operands and users. See VectorizationPlan.rst for more details. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38676 llvm-svn: 318645
* fix various typosSylvestre Ledru2017-06-261-1/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 306262
* [Docs] Add VectorizationPlan to docs/Proposals.Ayal Zaks2017-05-291-0/+182
| | | | | | | | Following the request made in https://reviews.llvm.org/D32871, the general documentation of the Vectorization Plan is hereby placed under docs/Proposals. llvm-svn: 304161
* fix some typos in the docSylvestre Ledru2017-01-141-2/+2
| | | | llvm-svn: 292014
* [doc] use double `` to prevent html output of merging double dashMehdi Amini2016-10-171-3/+3
| | | | llvm-svn: 284412
* [GitHubMove Doc] Properly nest a subsection in the proposalMehdi Amini2016-10-121-1/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 284082
* Moving to GitHub - Unified ProposalMehdi Amini2016-10-122-273/+868
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | This document describes the proposal to move to GitHub, and compare the two proposals through various workflow examples, presenting the current set of commands following by the ones involved in each of the two proposals. It is intended to supersede the previous "submodule proposal" document entirely, and drive the discussion at the BoF during the next Dev Meeting. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24167 llvm-svn: 284077
* [docs] Add sub-mod example by Chris to GitHub proposalRenato Golin2016-07-281-0/+5
| | | | llvm-svn: 277032
* fix some typos in the docSylvestre Ledru2016-07-281-1/+1
| | | | llvm-svn: 276968
* [docs] Move GitHub to GitHubSubModRenato Golin2016-07-211-3/+3
| | | | | | | | Given that other proposals are making their way through, it's better if we specify what GitHub proposal this is, in case there are others that also involve GitHub, but not sub-modules. llvm-svn: 276325
* [docs] GitHub Proposal for LLVMRenato Golin2016-07-201-0/+268
This document was crafted from the various (320+) emails between 2nd June and 20th July regarding the move to GitHub. It tried to consolidate every issue that was raised and every solution that was presented to have a GitHub repository with sub-modules. It *does not* try to argue whether sub-modules are better or worse than any other Git solution, nor if Git is better than any other VCS, nor if GitHub is better than any other free code hosting service. This is just the final conclusions of 48 days and 320 emails (plus a lot of IRC discussions) on the LLVM community. This document will be presented at the survey that the foundation will setup for us to decide if we move to this solution or not. It reflects what was discussed on the lists, but it's not authoritative. If something is not clear enough, please refer to the mailing list discussions (hint: search for "GitHub"). Review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D22463 llvm-svn: 276097
OpenPOWER on IntegriCloud