[LLVMdev] 2.6 request - Bug 4879
daniel at zuster.org
Wed Sep 9 10:46:12 PDT 2009
I believe the original reporter was using 2.6. We should confirm it
isn't in 2.6, since if it is I suspect it is a regression?
Michael, are you using 2.6 or top of tree?
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Chris Lattner<clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 3:01 PM, Devang Patel wrote:
>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>> On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Tanya Lattner wrote:
>>>> This can not go into 2.6, because r79742 is not in 2.6:
>>>> Should this really be a release candidate? Its changing quite a
>>>> bit and its not causing a regression.
>>> No, the bigger patch should not go into 2.6. Devang, can you
>>> please prepare a version of this patch that applies cleanly to the
>>> 2.6 branch?
>> hmmm... r81058 fixes a bug in the code that I added as part of
>> r79742. We definitely do not want to add r79742 in 2.6. Are we sure
>> that 4879 is not a recent regression ?
> Ok, if 2.6 is not affected, then we definitely don't want to mess with
> it. Thanks.
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the llvm-dev