[PATCH 1/9] R600/SI: fix stupid typo

[Christian König]

Am 26.02.2013 03:33, schrieb Sean Silva:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net 
> <mailto:tom at stellard.net>> wrote:
>
>     Can you clarify this?  Do you mean one email with with all the patches
>     as attachments?
>
>
> That would be preferable. Note that gmail (which many of us use) 
> doesn't respect threading (instead it arbitrarily threads based on 
> subject for some reason), so having them all as replies will still 
> flood the inbox of gmail users.
>

That's the exactly opposite policy as many other open source development 
list use, the argument pro in-lining patches is usually that the code is 
easier to comment on. But personally I usually also prefer some form of 
one mail (or one thread) per patchset for review.

> However, it is much more in line with LLVM development style to send 
> in patches incrementally for review rather than dumping a whole 
> branch; that ensures focused review.

Those patches belong together and either implement new features or fix 
bugs that were triggered/found while implementing those new features. 
Reviewing them separately would just increase the chance of missing 
something regarding inter patch dependency.

> (I'll also reiterate how troubling it is that none of these R600 
> changes have unit tests).

Totally agree on that, the major problem seems to be that currently the 
instruction scheduler and/or register allocator produce different 
results when compiling the same code twice. The results seems to be 
always correct, it's just not very well comparable. That fact makes it 
quite difficult for me to write profound unit tests. Any ideas on that?

Christian.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20130226/81e0e364/attachment.html>