llvm dev - May 2015 - [LLVMdev] 3.6.1 -rc1 has been tagged. Testing begins.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
> Sent: 15 May 2015 14:15
> To: Daniel Sanders
> Cc: Tom Stellard; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] 3.6.1 -rc1 has been tagged. Testing begins.
> 
> On 15 May 2015 at 13:34, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at
imgtec.com>
> wrote:
> > Not yet, these two failures were the first time we had seen the
problem.
> We're still looking into fixing it properly but I'm currently
thinking that the
> correct fix is to add
> >   if (Subtarget.isGP64bit())
> >     setOperationAction(ISD::SETCC, MVT::i32, Promote);
> > to MipsISelLowering.cpp and sort out the consequences of this on the
> patterns for all the comparison instructions. This is likely to be a fairly
big
> change to our target.
> 
> Right, so the best thing is probably reverting this one for 3.6.1.
> 
> cheers,
> --renato
I agree. I reverted it this morning (in r237432) after confirming that doing so
fixed the regressions. I've also kicked off the cross-compilation test-runs
again just to be sure removing it doesn't break anything else.

On 15 May 2015 at 14:32, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>
wrote:
> I agree. I reverted it this morning (in r237432) after confirming that
doing so fixed the regressions. I've also kicked off the cross-compilation
test-runs again just to be sure removing it doesn't break anything else.
Tom, do you think we need an RC2 for this one? AFAIK, this was the
only failure, and if Daniel's tests pass after reverting it, we may be
ok for just a final release.

cheers,
--renato

The cross-compilation testruns all passed with r237432 reverted.
________________________________________
From: Renato Golin [renato.golin at linaro.org]
Sent: 15 May 2015 14:42
To: Daniel Sanders
Cc: Tom Stellard; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] 3.6.1 -rc1 has been tagged. Testing begins.

On 15 May 2015 at 14:32, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com>
wrote:
> I agree. I reverted it this morning (in r237432) after confirming that
doing so fixed the regressions. I've also kicked off the cross-compilation
test-runs again just to be sure removing it doesn't break anything else.
Tom, do you think we need an RC2 for this one? AFAIK, this was the
only failure, and if Daniel's tests pass after reverting it, we may be
ok for just a final release.

cheers,
--renato