On 3 April 2014 08:51, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > It looks like this could be raised to 100% by restoring the prior order of > the llvm::Intrinsic enum? >
Do we want to go that far? I'm not against it, I've done this before, but I'm just making sure we know what we're getting into. If we keep the order in trunk, we'll have created a rule of which enum orders can't be changed (which messes up the code), if we change the stable branch only, we'll make it harder to backport and create further dot releases. By all means, now is the time to experiment (on stable branches), so if you want the latter, I won't oppose, but the former will face public opposition right and left, I predict. cheers, --renato
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
