Thanks Mei. Please go ahead with your check-in.
Michael
From: Ye, Mei
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 11:37 AM
To: Lai, Michael; 'open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net'
Subject: RE: [Open64-devel] code review (WOPT)
Michael and Sun,
Thanks for your comments. With regard to (2),
ot;LNO1" is
proactive-opt plus some WOPT components. Also, I have removed "ifdef".
This patch does not need much assertions.
-Mei
From: Lai, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 1:18 AM
To: Ye, Mei; 'open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net'
Subject: RE: [Open64-de
Mei, I read through your changes, and did not see any blocking issues.
However, here are some minor comments from Sun Chan and me, for your future
consideration:
1. You may want to add more assertions.
2. I see that you already did some minor reorganization of your code; in
the fut
rything patch last August.
>
> -Mei
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:57 PM
> To: Ye, Mei
> Cc: open64-devel
> Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] code review (WOPT)
>
> looks fine to me.
> Where di
Case 2 was introduced in an one-for-everything patch last August.
-Mei
-Original Message-
From: Sun Chan [mailto:sun.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 2:57 PM
To: Ye, Mei
Cc: open64-devel
Subject: Re: [Open64-devel] code review (WOPT)
looks fine to me.
Where did the
looks fine to me.
Where did the original code in cxx_template come from? It shows two
issues in the first place
1. not enough unit test case
2. if this is recent code, code review should have picked this up
(gatekeepers didn't do the proper job :-( )
Sun
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ye, Mei w
