llvm dev - Jan 2015 - [LLVMdev] Should I commit "IR: Move MDLocation into place" before or after 3.6 branch?

I just finished the work for PR21433.  I think it's relatively low risk,
but it does change assembly output.

Should I commit this before or after the (imminent) 3.6 branch?

(I would have committed it tonight, but the buildbots are fairly red,
and I prefer to break out-of-tree code in the morning anyway.)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: llvm.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 381055 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150113/54612c8e/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: clang.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 20674 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150113/54612c8e/attachment-0001.obj>

Up to you at this point. If you're confident that it's solid and not
going
to break anything in-tree that's already functioning go ahead. If you're
worried about the risk then you can wait - out of tree code isn't a worry
here.

-eric

On Tue Jan 13 2015 at 9:46:42 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> I just finished the work for PR21433.  I think it's relatively low
risk,
> but it does change assembly output.
>
> Should I commit this before or after the (imminent) 3.6 branch?
>
> (I would have committed it tonight, but the buildbots are fairly red,
> and I prefer to break out-of-tree code in the morning anyway.)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150114/2b6de4ca/attachment.html>

One small request: Omitting the column field from MDLocation if it is 0 is fine,
because it won’t make it into the line table. Omitting the line if it is 0 is
not, because it gives the wrong impression that the line is being ignored, which
is not the case. Line 0 will be emitted in the line table and has special
semantics (Line 0 in DWARF may be used to mark compiler-generated code that has
no corresponding source line number).

thanks,
adrian
> On Jan 13, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at
apple.com> wrote:
> 
> I just finished the work for PR21433.  I think it's relatively low
risk,
> but it does change assembly output.
> 
> Should I commit this before or after the (imminent) 3.6 branch?
> 
> (I would have committed it tonight, but the buildbots are fairly red,
> and I prefer to break out-of-tree code in the morning anyway.)
> 
> <llvm.patch><clang.patch>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com>
wrote:
> One small request: Omitting the column field from MDLocation if it is 0 is
> fine, because it won’t make it into the line table. Omitting the line if it
> is 0 is not, because it gives the wrong impression that the line is being
> ignored, which is not the case. Line 0 will be emitted in the line table
> and has special semantics (Line 0 in DWARF may be used to mark
> compiler-generated code that has no corresponding source line number).
>
I don't know - I think I might be OK with it being implicitly zero (I think
that's the column behavior - if the column is never set it's just zero
in
the line table? (which is "no specific column") - that seems
consistent
with zero line ("no actual line in the source code"))

>
> thanks,
> adrian
>
> > On Jan 13, 2015, at 9:46 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
> dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> >
> > I just finished the work for PR21433.  I think it's relatively low
risk,
> > but it does change assembly output.
> >
> > Should I commit this before or after the (imminent) 3.6 branch?
> >
> > (I would have committed it tonight, but the buildbots are fairly red,
> > and I prefer to break out-of-tree code in the morning anyway.)
> >
> > <llvm.patch><clang.patch>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150114/c381e9f1/attachment.html>

> On 2015 Jan 14, at 10:52, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 
> Up to you at this point. If you're confident that it's solid and
not going to break anything in-tree that's already functioning go ahead. If
you're worried about the risk then you can wait - out of tree code isn't
a worry here.
> 
Nope, all the risky changes (i.e., splitting metadata/value) were before
the branch point ;).

I merged in the ones that missed the deadline (ending with r226095).
> -eric
> 
> On Tue Jan 13 2015 at 9:46:42 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at
apple.com> wrote:
> I just finished the work for PR21433.  I think it's relatively low
risk,
> but it does change assembly output.
> 
> Should I commit this before or after the (imminent) 3.6 branch?
> 
> (I would have committed it tonight, but the buildbots are fairly red,
> and I prefer to break out-of-tree code in the morning anyway.)
>