[llvm] r178854 - Buildbot fix for r178851: mistake was in wrong TargetRegisterInfo::getRegClass usage.

[Stepan Dyatkovskiy]

OK. Which time is most active in ARM direction? I asked because I want 
to sync it with my sleep time. Just, don't want any accidents like this 
anymore :-)

-Stepan.

Renato Golin wrote:
> Hi Stepan,
>
> You are right, the test remained broken until I cleaned the directory.
> However, after Jakob's enquires, I think we should still keep it off
> until another round of review is done. Shouldn't be a problem, since the
> patch is localized and doesn't depend on APIs that change too often.
>
> If Jacob is happy with your patch, I'm fine with it as long as it passes
> at least check-all and test-suite on an A8 or higher and on x86_64.
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
>
> On 7 April 2013 12:51, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru
> <mailto:stpworld at narod.ru>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>     Eh.. guys, I looked at clang-native-arm-lnt after my patch was reverted,
>     Revert of r178854 didn't fix any of failed tests, revision number of
>     revert commit is 178883.  In #452 build (r178904) it is still failed
>     (few hours after Renato reverted my commits). Actually it have been
>     fixed somewhere between 178904 and 178923).
>
>     But I'm still very sorry about ugly r178851 and *absent* reaction
>     after 178854. Currently my beagleboard rebuilds everything, so I'll
>     publish test reports soon.
>
>     I also have question about
>     TargetRegisterInfo::__getMinimalPhysRegClass and
>     QPRRegClass.contains(). My purpose in this code is to find the
>     minimal class for register. I supposed this method does exactly what
>     I need.
>     So do you propose to replace it with
>     SPRRegClass/DPRRegClass/__QPRRegClass.contains methods set?
>
>     -Stepan.
>
>
>     Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote:
>
>
>         On Apr 5, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Renato Golin
>         <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:
>
>             On 5 April 2013 19:26, Jakob Stoklund Olesen
>             <stoklund at 2pi.dk <mailto:stoklund at 2pi.dk>> wrote:
>
>             That's not right either. How are you testing this code?
>             Please don't just guess.
>
>             You should probably be using QPRRegClass.contains().
>
>             Hi Jacob,
>
>             I have reverted this (and the original) patch already. This
>             is not right and there isn't enough tests to make me sleep
>             at night.
>
>             Unless I see clear evidence that a patch in that area is
>             actually doing what it should (via review of someone that
>             knows it, like you) AND proper tests are passing (including
>             the test-suite on ARM), it'll remain reverted.
>
>
>         Thanks, Renato.
>
>         I agree.
>
>         /jakob
>
>
>