phosek accepted this revision. phosek added a comment. In D66324#1653198 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#1653198>, @paulkirth wrote:
> In D66324#1652364 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#1652364>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > > > Trying to start reviewing this. > > The llvm side of the patch is self contained; clang patch should be split > > into a dependent review. > > > Looking at this, is it necessary to split up the patch? That will loose a lot > of the previous comment/context, and I'd prefer to land this as a single > change. Doing so has the benefit that if my patch needs to be reverted, it > can be done all together. For example, if only the llvm patch is reverted, > then it will likely cause other problems and make triage needlessly painful. I'd actually prefer to land this as a single change, it makes it easier to revert and look at the diff later. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
