3.8 Merge Request: rL266217

[Nirav Davé via llvm-commits]

Yes. That's reasonable. We should only avoid adding rL266217 without also
rL266438.

Nirav
On May 18, 2016 5:17 PM, "Tom Stellard" <tom at stellard.net> wrote:

> Hi Nirav,
>
> Does it make sense to merge http://reviews.llvm.org/rL266438 even
> without  http://reviews.llvm.org/rL266217.
>
> -Tom
>
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 05:03:10PM -0400, Nirav Davé wrote:
> > This patch causes building clang for ppc64le to trip over a latent bug
> > (PR27350) which was fixed in http://reviews.llvm.org/rL266438. Both or
> > neither should be applied.
> >
> > -Nirav
> >
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:45 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Owen,
> > >
> > > Is this OK to merge to the 3.8 branch:
> http://reviews.llvm.org/rL266217
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 06:53:10PM +0000, Kit Barton wrote:
> > > >    Hi,
> > > >    Could we please include rL266217 in the 3.8.1 release?
> > > >    It fixes PR27138, in addition to PR26827 (which was noted in the
> > > >    Phabricator review).
> > > >
> > > >    Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >    Kit Barton, Ph.D.
> > > >    LLVM Development on POWER
> > > >    IBM Toronto Lab, D2/929/8200/MKM
> > > >    8200 Warden Ave, Markham, L6G 1C7
> > > >    (905) 413-3452
> > > >    kbarton at ca.ibm.com
> > >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20160518/f52fccc0/attachment.html>