On Monday 29 March 2010 13:20:37 Chris Lattner wrote:> > How should we handle the llvm-gcc and clang changes? > > What changes are required?Attached. They are trivial.> You have access to all llvm repositories, including clang and llvm-gcc.Ok. Is there are preferred order to commit things? I think I'm ready to go. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: clang-beforeafter.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 605 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100330/c1df4dc2/attachment.bin> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: llvm-gcc-beforeafter.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1532 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100330/c1df4dc2/attachment-0001.bin>
On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:27 PM, David Greene wrote:> On Monday 29 March 2010 13:20:37 Chris Lattner wrote: > >>> How should we handle the llvm-gcc and clang changes? >> >> What changes are required? > > Attached. They are trivial.Why not just change the order of the arguments to createPrintModulePass, and make the string default to ""? -Chris
On Tuesday 30 March 2010 15:20:09 Chris Lattner wrote:> On Mar 30, 2010, at 12:27 PM, David Greene wrote: > > On Monday 29 March 2010 13:20:37 Chris Lattner wrote: > >>> How should we handle the llvm-gcc and clang changes? > >> > >> What changes are required? > > > > Attached. They are trivial. > > Why not just change the order of the arguments to createPrintModulePass, > and make the string default to ""?1. I wanted to be consistent with createPrintFunctionPass. 2. Default arguments are often evil. Maybe not in this case but I didn't want to encourage their use. :) That said, I'll go ahead and make this change to reduce the impact of this. -Dave