<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Rafael Espíndola <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> That's because we seem to be debating whether we'd actively reject a patch to fix such issues, not how important they are to us to fix.<br>
<br>
</span>I would not work on it. Including not review it while there are actual<br>
missing features to be implemented. </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
If you want to call that a low priority bug, go for it. I don't find<br>
it honest to do that myself.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I wouldn't call this a "low priority bug". If you would not review patches to fix it (effectively blocking patches, I assume - I take it you would ask for such patches to be reverted if you hadn't reviewed/approved them?) that seems different to how the rest of the LLVM community treats these sort of issues.<br><br>- David</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Rafael<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
LLVM Developers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org">llvm-dev@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>