On 06/12/13 2:30 PM, Bill Wendling wrote:
What's the cost :: benefit ratio for this? Is not including this patch going to block something critical? We're in phase II testing, so we need to be extra picky about patches here.
I understand we're in phase II... the patches are OpenBSD specific and you just commited the same type of patches here for NetBSD.. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2013-December/007332.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-branch-commits/2013-December/007333.html
-bw On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:16 PM, Brad Smith <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On 05/12/13 1:34 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: Get what committed? I don't see a patch here. -bw It was at the beginning of the thread.. http://marc.info/?l=cfe-__commits&m=138588474806028&w=2 <http://marc.info/?l=cfe-commits&m=138588474806028&w=2> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Rafael Espíndola <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:rafael.espindola@__gmail.com <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: > So can we get this commited? Depends on Bill's opinion about porting this to 3.4. If it is not OK to 3.4 I think we should try o use gnutools::Assemble::__ConstructJob on trunk instead. Cheers, Rafael -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>__, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
