[PATCH] D20260: IR: Introduce local_unnamed_addr attribute.

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-commits]

> On May 17, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:08 PM Mehdi Amini via llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> Seriously I absolutely don't get the "start a new revision" thing because the initial email was not on llvm-commit. Really what is the rational?
> 
> We are losing the history and the threading for the review, this is really annoying.
> 
> So big -1
> 
> I don't care very much about starting a new revision.
> 
> Justin and others who don't use phabricator asked for this because that is what causes an email with a patch file to be sent to llvm-commits, and so I've been trying to encourage it based on their request.


There *has been* an email with a patch sent to llvm-commit after the first update to the diff: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20160516/357163.html
Just "having a patch sent to llvm-commit" can be accomplished with an manual email answering to the revision instead of create a new one from scratch.

That said the patch is always a mere two-clicks away from the email: http://reviews.llvm.org/D20260?download=true
One could even write a plugin for his email client to act on link in the email "http://reviews.llvm.org/D20260" and automatically curl the latest patch.

> There is still the fact that even the initial phab revision has essentially no context. I've skimmed thin three or four times and I'm not sure yet what the motivation is... I'm sure it has one, I just can't find it.

s/Initial phab revision/current phab revision/

Yes, I'd expect a phabricator revision to have a correct description.

-- 
Mehdi






>  
> 
> --
> Mehdi
> 
> 
> > On May 17, 2016, at 4:49 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > chandlerc added a subscriber: chandlerc.
> > chandlerc added a comment.
> >
> > Folks, llvm-commits wasn't even on the original version of this patch, and there is essentially no high-level description of the problem being solved or the motivation of the patch.
> >
> > Can you start a fresh revision in phab and actually include a *lot* more context? I suspect many, many people will be very interested in something as impactful as a new variant of 'unnamed_addr' and they may (like me) have completely missed the discussion taking place here or lack significant context for it.
> >
> >
> > http://reviews.llvm.org/D20260 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D20260>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits <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/20160517/4f95b81b/attachment.html>