[PATCH] D45138: [MC] Change std::sort to llvm::sort in response to r327219

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

Since these are mechanical changes, I'll review and give LGTM.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 1:49 PM Grang, Mandeep Singh <mgrang at codeaurora.org>
wrote:

> @ruiu @rksimon These 4 are the last remaining patches pending review and
> merge. Is it possible for you to review them?
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D45142
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D45139
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D45138
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D45137
>
> --Mandeep
>
> On 4/9/2018 3:34 PM, Grang, Mandeep Singh wrote:
>
>
> On 4/9/2018 3:16 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:13 PM Mandeep Singh Grang via Phabricator <
> reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> mgrang added a comment.
>>
>> In https://reviews.llvm.org/D45138#1062213, @ruiu wrote:
>>
>> > I'm not familiar with r327219, but if a decision to use randomized sort
>> has been made, why don't you replace all occurrences of std::sort with
>> llvm::sort in a single patch? I don't think that an author of each file
>> don't have to understand this kind of change and approve individually.
>>
>>
>> I had a patch to replace *all* occurrences of std::sort to llvm::sort
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D44363. However, the reviewers felt that the
>> patch was getting too big and suggested splitting it into smaller patches
>> target-wise, tablegen, MC, etc. Hence these separate patches.
>>
>
> If the only reason not to submit them as a single patch is its size, I can
> actually approve. As long as it is a mechanical patch, I'm not worried too
> much about its size.
>
> Adding @rksimon since he has been reviewing my patches. Is it OK if I
> squash the remaining 4 patches (D45142 D45139 D45138 D45137) into one and
> push them as a single patch?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20180412/6d6e608f/attachment.html>