[LLVMdev] 2.6 request - Bug 4879

[Daniel Dunbar]

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?

 - Daniel

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:
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090817/085284.html
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090831/086443.html
>>
>> 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.
>
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>