On Don, 2013-02-14 at 11:32 +0100, Christian König wrote: > Am 13.02.2013 18:22, schrieb Michel Dänzer: > > On Mit, 2013-02-13 at 18:17 +0100, Christian König wrote: > >> Am 13.02.2013 18:11, schrieb Michel Dänzer: > >>> On Mit, 2013-02-13 at 11:34 -0500, Tom Stellard wrote: > >>>> There's just the one cleanup on patch 10 that you mentioned, but > >>>> otherwise the series looks good to me. Should we mark all these patches > >>>> as candidates for the stable branch? > >>> I think so, at least the parts which prevent things such as Vincent's > >>> MAD changes or switching to the Source scheduler from breaking stuff. > >> I still have no idea why the MAD change actually breaks anything. I'm > >> working on OMOD/ABS/NEG folding in another branch and have Vincents MAD > >> in there, but I haven't had time to fully figure out what's wrong there. > >> And unfortunately I don't think I will have time in the near future. > > Well, as I said, his MAD changes no longer break after this series. Does > > anything speak against backporting the whole series to the stable tree? > > Oh, didn't know that I actually had fixed the bug that made MAD break, > good to know. > > Well it's quite a change, but applying it to stable as well sounds > logical to me and I don't see any reason why we should do so.
Right, it also facilitates fixes such as those I posted yesterday. > Sending out V2 of the patchset out in the next few moments. Can you push > that to llvm master ? I can't commit to LLVM SVN without approval by Tom (or another LLVM developer), so I think I'll just leave it to Tom. :) > I still don't have requested commit rights there. (When) Did you send the request mail to Chris Lattner? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Debian, X and DRI developer _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev