search for: 59d8ad63

> >> + EP_EnabledOnOptLevel0 > > I'd rename this as EP_AlwaysEnabled > Renamed, see the attachment. But note that one needs to add his pass at two extension points: at O0 and wherever else he wanted to add it. Won't such a name confuse the user? E.g. he may think that just adding a pass as "EP_AlwaysEnabled" should be enough to have it at any optimization

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>wrote: > PS. Should we move the discussion to cfe-commits or it's ok to > continue the review process here? > For future reference, please send patches which touch both LLVM and Clang to llvm-commits and cfe-commits. However, looking at the Clang side of the patch, it is totally fine. =D --------------

...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/20111129/59d8ad63/attachment.html>