froydnj added a comment. In D81865#2293146 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81865#2293146>, @MaskRay wrote:
> In D81865#2293066 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81865#2293066>, @dblaikie wrote: > >> In D81865#2293059 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81865#2293059>, @MaskRay wrote: >> >>> @froydnj The committed version rG31a3c5fb45b78bdaa78d94ffcc9258e839002016 >>> <https://reviews.llvm.org/rG31a3c5fb45b78bdaa78d94ffcc9258e839002016> >>> appears to be very different from the review. I guess next time your >>> probably can upload the diff again if it is very diffierent >> >> Judging by a cursory glance at Phab's view of the delta ( >> https://reviews.llvm.org/rG4b64ce7428b66cacfe74dbd9dbc29aff6dfb84af ) it >> /looks/ like it wasn't too different. Mostly picking up upstream changes >> that added "DEFERRABLE"? (I think Phab uses light green for "this changed, >> but only because of upstream changes" and dark green is the actual patch >> changes?) > > Sorry for the noise. What I saw previously was a mere difference in the DIAG > macro and the new isDeferable... Maybe Phab presented the diff between two > Diffs to me. The updated view seems good. I assumed that "add another parameter to a macro due to rebasing" was not a significant enough change to warrant reposting...but as this is the first patch I was committing myself, I probably should have been a bit more explicit in what I was committing (even re-asking for review? I'm not sure of the norms around rebasing in the LLVM project). My mistake! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D81865/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D81865 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
