[llvm] r318397 - [Support][CachePruning] Fix regression in pruning interval

[Rafael Avila de Espindola via llvm-commits]

Oh, looks like the list is just really slow.

I reverted this since it broke a gold test. From your commit to lld it
looks like the test is just missing an option to force pruning too.

Cheers,
Rafael

Ben Dunbobbin via llvm-commits <llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> writes:

> Author: bd1976llvm
> Date: Thu Nov 16 05:15:56 2017
> New Revision: 318397
>
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=318397&view=rev
> Log:
> [Support][CachePruning] Fix regression in pruning interval
>
> Fixed broken comparison.
> borked by: rL284966 (see: https://reviews.llvm.org/D25730).
>
> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D40119
>
> Modified:
>     llvm/trunk/lib/Support/CachePruning.cpp
>
> Modified: llvm/trunk/lib/Support/CachePruning.cpp
> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Support/CachePruning.cpp?rev=318397&r1=318396&r2=318397&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- llvm/trunk/lib/Support/CachePruning.cpp (original)
> +++ llvm/trunk/lib/Support/CachePruning.cpp Thu Nov 16 05:15:56 2017
> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ bool llvm::pruneCache(StringRef Path, Ca
>        return false;
>      }
>    } else {
> -    if (Policy.Interval == seconds(0)) {
> +    if (Policy.Interval != seconds(0)) {
>        // Check whether the time stamp is older than our pruning interval.
>        // If not, do nothing.
>        const auto TimeStampModTime = FileStatus.getLastModificationTime();
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits