[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] !!! 3.2 Release branch patching and the Code Owners

[Chris Lattner]

The reassociate patch is also ok with me.

-Chris

On Nov 21, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:

> Hi Pawel,
> 
>> I would like to merge r168035, r168181 and r168291 as
>> one reassociate changeset:
> 
> r168181 has nothing to do with reassociate, so should be separate.  r168035 and
> r168291 have no logical connection so I don't think they should be merged as one
> changeset.
> 
>> Have you heard from Chris regarding r168291?
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html
> 
> No, he didn't OK it yet.  Hopefully he will!
> 
> Ciao, Duncan.
> 
>> 
>> Pawel
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 20/11/12 05:57, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>> Fwiw, I approve both of these patches if they are still unmerged.
>>> ...
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/155994.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156206.html
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks Chris.  Can you please also give your go ahead for this nasty
>>> reassociate
>>> infinite loop (PR14060):
>>> 
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121112/156364.html
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best wishes, Duncan.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>