[PATCH] Introduce llvm/ADT/OptionSet.h utility class

[Philip Reames via llvm-commits]

Can you update phrabricator with the new patch?  Putting it on a new 
thread with a reference to this one is likely to get it more attention.  
We're buried way down another discussion at this point and most folks 
have probably stopped following.

Also, can you give a bit of information about how you're planning to use 
this?  Just curious what the context (within LLVM) is?

Philip

On 02/12/2016 05:50 PM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis via llvm-commits wrote:
>
>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com 
>> <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 02/12/2016 01:19 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> On Feb 12, 2016, at 1:08 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>         I got permission internally and contributed the header
>>>>>         under the LLVM license, I don’t think that whether it
>>>>>         originated from swift repo or not makes any difference here.
>>>>>         If you could elaborate more on your concerns it would be
>>>>>         helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     How do we know whether any other contributor to Swift authored
>>>>>     some of the code in this file? Does Apple get copyright
>>>>>     assignment for all Swift contributions? Only if Apple has
>>>>>     copyright assignment for all contributions to Swift or only
>>>>>     people from Apple have every contributed to this part of Swift
>>>>>     is asking internally enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>     And since this is an open source project, it would seem polite
>>>>>     (even if not necessary) to also ask the community rather than
>>>>>     just asking internally. We don't all work at Apple. =/
>>>>
>>>
>>> The code is 100% copyrighted by Apple.  The full history in the 
>>> swift repo is here:
>>> https://github.com/apple/swift/commits/master/include/swift/Basic/OptionSet.h
>>>
>>> There are two trivial patches by non-apple contributors.  Both are 
>>> both single line patches that adjust comments (one is the first line 
>>> of the file, one is the copyright date):
>>> https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/1339b5403bbaf6205abb2bfdf7fabadef1aacc70#diff-1e8f8df8addd9510deea20d4bea2eda2
>>> https://github.com/apple/swift/commit/e3a4147ac94e55fcab1d14e949f572b53d9eb638#diff-1e8f8df8addd9510deea20d4bea2eda2
>>>
>>> That said, both of those patches are irrelevant to the discussion, 
>>> because Argyrios removed the swift header and replaced it with the 
>>> LLVM header when he checked it in.
>> Just to be clear, you're saying that Apple owns the copyright on the 
>> entire file as posted for review and can thus relicense under the 
>> LLVM license?  If so, that would resolve the licensing concern.  In 
>> the future, let's make sure that gets mentioned in the review/commit 
>> thread to avoid confusion.
>>
>> With that, we're back to "let's post a patch and get it reviewed" per 
>> the normal process.
>
> See updated patch. MSVC 2013 had some trouble with the code and there 
> are parts ifdef’ed out for MSVC 2013.
> Aaron was kind enough to offer feedback on the MSVC issues.
> Per Jordan, the static assert that gives trouble for MSVC is just an 
> enforced style check.
>
> The specific MSVC issues were:
>
> Compiler crash:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/builds/9718
> Compiler error in unit test:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/builds/9720
> Unit test failure:
> http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/builds/9721
>
> =
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>     + Chris, for comment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also, just to be clear (since I think my original email wasn't 
>>>> terribly): I think something as simple as this code review thread 
>>>> would have been fine if you had waited for the code review, and 
>>>> made it clear why it was OK to contribute (only Apple folks have 
>>>> touched it, or whatever).
>>>>
>>>> I'm not suggesting we need to have some big or complex discussion. 
>>>> =] We have plenty of those on harder subjects.
>>>
>>> I agree that the header should get the normal patch review!
>>>
>>> -Chris
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160216/cc8d49c7/attachment.html>