On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:02:46PM -0800, John McCall wrote: > On Feb 22, 2013, at 4:00 PM, Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:37:02PM -0800, John McCall wrote: > >> On Feb 22, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Peter Collingbourne <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Author: pcc > >>> Date: Fri Feb 22 13:24:35 2013 > >>> New Revision: 175912 > >>> > >>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=175912&view=rev > >>> Log: > >>> Add support for coldcc to clang > >> > >> Was this approved in some way that I missed? > >> > >> John. > > > > I took this to be an in-principle approval of the patch: > > > >> I agree that we could certainly expose a calling convention with zero > >> binary-compatibility guarantees. > > That's a pretty aggressive reading.
Fair enough. > > As for the code, I decided that we could do post-commit review, > > since most of the patch is mechanical. > > Right, I don't have any problem with the patch technically. > It's all about design. > > Please revert and we can continue the actual discussion about whether > to add this calling convention and, if so, under what name. r175936. Thanks, -- Peter _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
