search for: pr14233

Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "pr14233".

Did you mean: pr14133
2012 Nov 01
4
[LLVMdev] Heads up, I've backed out significant amounts of the multiple address space conversion changes
...eworking of core APIs was mixed with updating their consumers, and with general cleanups. This makes isolated reverts impossible, and general reverts increasingly hard as time passes. 5) There is at least one serious bug with the methodology being employed in some of the usage patterns, leading to PR14233. 6) Micah is out of the office for a while and not likely to have the time necessary to address these issues quickly. 7) We're going to be branching for 3.2 in not-too-long. When you combine all these factors, the best option I saw was to back out the widespread changes outside of the core...
2013 Jun 27
0
[LLVMdev] Heads up, I've backed out significant amounts of the multiple address space conversion changes
...mixed with updating their > consumers, and with general cleanups. This makes isolated reverts > impossible, and general reverts increasingly hard as time passes. > > 5) There is at least one serious bug with the methodology being > employed in some of the usage patterns, leading to PR14233. > > 6) Micah is out of the office for a while and not likely to have the > time necessary to address these issues quickly. > > 7) We're going to be branching for 3.2 in not-too-long. > > > When you combine all these factors, the best option I saw was to back > ou...
2013 Jun 27
2
[LLVMdev] Heads up, I've backed out significant amounts of the multiple address space conversion changes
...xed with updating their > consumers, and with general cleanups. This makes isolated reverts > impossible, and general reverts increasingly hard as time passes. > > 5) There is at least one serious bug with the methodology being > employed in some of the usage patterns, leading to PR14233. > > 6) Micah is out of the office for a while and not likely to have the > time necessary to address these issues quickly. > > 7) We're going to be branching for 3.2 in not-too-long. > > > When you combine all these factors, the best option I saw was to back >...