llvm dev - Sep 2009 - [LLVMdev] 2.6 request - Bug 4879

On Sep 7, 2009, at 9:19 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Michael Lyle wrote:
> First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my
>> earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it.
>>
>> I'm writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the
>> 2.6 release.  Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly
>> broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64).  I don't know if it has
>> any other implications but it's definitely greatly stabilizing for
>> our
>> code base.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Tanya, please pull
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html
>  into 2.6 when convenient, thanks!
>
This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html

Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a bit  
and its not causing a regression.

-Tanya
>
> -Chris
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> PS -- I am not subscribed to this list.
>>
>> -- 
>> Michael P. Lyle
>> Chief Executive Officer
>> Translattice, Inc.
>> mlyle at translattice.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090908/c89ad5a3/attachment.html>

On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
> This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6:
>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html
>
> Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a bit  
> and its not causing a regression.
No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6.  Devang, can you please  
prepare a version of this patch that applies cleanly to the 2.6 branch?

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html

-Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090908/3e6f5001/attachment.html>

On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>> This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6:
>>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html
>>
>> Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a bit  
>> and its not causing a regression.
>
> No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6.  Devang, can you please  
> prepare a version of this patch that applies cleanly to the 2.6  
> branch?
>
>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html
hmmm... r81058 fixes a bug in the code that I added as part of r79742.  
We definitely do not want to add r79742 in 2.6. Are we sure that 4879  
is not a recent regression ?

-
Devang