Aaron said LGTM, thus I accept the revision. 18.06.2015, 19:26, "Aaron Ballman" <[email protected]>:
> Since Chris isn't strongly opposed, I think the patch LGTM. > > ~Aaron > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Chris Lattner <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 18, 2015, at 3:02 AM, Alexey Frolov <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry for disturbing :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In comment 1 of http://llvm.org/PR17453 you wrote: > > > > > > > >> It isn't clear that we want to support this. Our goal is not to > > > pass the GCC testsuite. > > > > > > > What in your opinion should be done with this PR - fixed or closed as > > > "WONTFIX”? > > > > > > > > > I don’t have strong opinions about this. On the one hand, I don’t see this > > as a commonly used extension, so I don’t see it as critical to support. > > OTOH, if the patch is small and self contained, it is better to be > > compatible. > > > > > > -Chris > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > Alexey Frolov > > > > > > > ============= > > > > > > > Software Engineer > > > > > > > Intel Compiler Team > > > > > > > Intel > > > > REPOSITORY rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D10058 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
