<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Chris Lattner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clattner@apple.com" target="_blank">clattner@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="">On Apr 14, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Robert Lougher <<a href="mailto:rob.lougher@gmail.com">rob.lougher@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> PR17975 was caused by r191059 which was reverted on the 3.4 branch in<br>
> r196521. However, the problem still occurs with trunk (confirmed as<br>
> of r206186).<br>
><br>
> From a thread on cfe-commits I see that Kai Nacke (the author of<br>
> r191059) was working on a patch to fix PR17975, but the conversation<br>
> ends:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131202/197968.html" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131202/197968.html</a><br>
><br>
> So my question is should we revert r191059 on trunk? From what I can<br>
> see, the code has already been refactored once in r198768 (retaining<br>
> identical functionality). Further work may make it even more<br>
> difficult to unpick.<br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Rob.<br>
><br>
> P.S. CC-ing Kai Nacke in case he still intends to follow up on his<br>
> original patch.<br>
<br>
</div>This is the patch in question?<br>
<a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130916/188476.html" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130916/188476.html</a><br>
<br>
If so, yes, absolutely revert this.</blockquote></div><br>No, its <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130916/188462.html">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20130916/188462.html</a></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">And I think it should be reverted, yes.</div></div>