[PATCH 3/3] [LLVM] [sanitizer] add conditionals for libc

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On 17 April 2014 19:01, Konstantin Serebryany
<konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
> <rep.dot.nop at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17 April 2014 16:51:23 Konstantin Serebryany
>> <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
>>> <rep.dot.nop at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On 17 April 2014 16:07, Konstantin Serebryany
>>> > <konstantin.s.serebryany at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> If you are trying to modify the libsanitizer files, please read here:
>>> >> https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToContribute
>>> >
>>> > I read that, thanks. Patch 3/3 is for current compiler-rt git repo,
>>> > please install it there, i do not have write access to the LLVM nor
>>> > compiler-rt trees.
>>>
>>> I can commit your patch to llvm tree only after you follow the process
>>> described on that page.
>>> Sorry, this is a hard rule.
>>
>>
>> What part of the process do you think I did not follow?
>>
>> I made a patch for compiler-rt, sent it to llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu then
>> provided the corresponding GCC parts, along a backport of the new bits that
>> I expect to be overwritten once you do a new merge, leaving just the GCC
>> configuy bits. This is how I read the wiki page you cite.
>>
>> Please tell me what you expect me to do differently?
>
> First, I did not notice that you've sent it to llvm-commits because it
> was also sent to the gcc list (unusual thing to happen)
> and got filtered into the gcc part of my mail. Sorry.
> But second, the patch is far from trivial and you should not expect us
> to commit it w/o a careful review,
> so here comes another part of the wiki: "For non-trivial patches
> please use Phabricator -- this will help us reply faster."

http://reviews.llvm.org/D3464

thanks,