lebedev.ri added a comment. In D66324#2395230 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#2395230>, @haowei wrote:
> In D66324#2394687 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#2394687>, @lebedev.ri > wrote: > >> In D66324#2336555 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#2336555>, @lebedev.ri >> wrote: >> >>> In D66324#2336186 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#2336186>, @phosek wrote: >>> >>>> I apologize for the late response, I somehow missed the earlier responses. >>>> We have successfully used this feature in Fuchsia and found it useful, but >>>> I agree that the issues raised need to be addressed. Unfortunately >>>> @paulkirth is no longer working on this project. I hope that someone from >>>> our team can take a look but it might take a few weeks. If you prefer, we >>>> could revert this change and then reland an improved version in the future? >>> >>> I would very much prefer *NOT* not revert if someone is going to step up to >>> work on these problems soon (within next 4 weeks?). >>> >>> That being said, in light of that bug, my original doubts about the >>> underlying data type (a novel `MD_misexpect`, >>> with structure different from `MD_prof`) have reappeared with double >>> strength. I really think they should share underlying type. >> >> I'll be posting a revert soon. > > Sorry for the late reply. Since @paulkirth is no longer working on this > project. I can take over it and start working on it full time beginning next > week. It would take me some time to get familiar with the code and work on > the fix though. If you still prefer reverting this change, we can work on an > improved version and reland it in the future. I think revert will result in an more easily reviewable fix, yes. Repository: rL LLVM 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
