r195363 - Add support for legalizing SETNE/SETEQ by inverting the condition code and the result of the comparison.
Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com
Mon Nov 25 05:18:46 PST 2013
That's a relief. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
From: Bill Wendling [mailto:isanbard at gmail.com]
Sent: 25 November 2013 05:21
To: Daniel Sanders
Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: r195363 - Add support for legalizing SETNE/SETEQ by inverting the condition code and the result of the comparison.
No worries. I loosened the requirement for this round a bit, allowing some people to commit patches after approval. Don't worry about reverting the patch you put in, just as long as it doesn't break things. :-)
On Nov 22, 2013, at 8:38 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel.sanders at imgtec.com<mailto:daniel.sanders at imgtec.com>> wrote:
Sorry about my commit to the release branch (r195363, I think the commit email is stuck in moderation since I don't see it in the archive). The announcement email (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-November/067917.html) led me to believe that people could commit their own work this week provided they had approval from the code owner but I've just come acrosshttp://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html#release-patch-rules which says differently.
Let me know if you want me to revert it.
Leading Software Design Engineer, MIPS Processor IP
Imagination Technologies Limited
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-commits