search for: r79742

On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: >> This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6: >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html >> >> Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a bit >> and its not causing a regression. > > No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6. Devang,...

On Sep 8, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> >> On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: >>> This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6: >>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html >>> >>> Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a >>> bit and its not causing a regression. >> >> No, the bigger patch should n...

...ns but it's definitely greatly stabilizing for >> our >> code base. > > Makes sense. > > Tanya, please pull http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html > into 2.6 when convenient, thanks! > This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a bit and its not causing a regression. -Tanya > > -Chris > >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mike >> >>...

On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html > > Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a bit > and its not causing a regression. No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6. Devang, can you please prepare...

On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:27 PM, Michael Lyle wrote: First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my > earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it. > > I'm writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the > 2.6 release. Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly > broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64). I don't

First-- thanks to Daniel Dunbar for reporting this issue from my earlier coarse report on IRC and to Devang Patel for fixing it. I'm writing to request that this fix (r81058) find its way into the 2.6 release. Code compiled with clang that uses VLAs is horribly broken without r81058 (at least on x86-64). I don't know if it has any other implications but it's definitely