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.htmlhmmm... 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
On Sep 8, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Devang Patel wrote:> > 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 ?Ok, if 2.6 is not affected, then we definitely don't want to mess with it. Thanks. -Chris
I believe the original reporter was using 2.6. We should confirm it isn't in 2.6, since if it is I suspect it is a regression? Michael, are you using 2.6 or top of tree? - Daniel On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Chris Lattner<clattner at apple.com> wrote:> > On Sep 8, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> >> 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 ? > > Ok, if 2.6 is not affected, then we definitely don't want to mess with > it. Thanks. > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >