paulkirth added a comment. In D146777#4457209 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D146777#4457209>, @MaskRay wrote:
> As mentioned, you may consider landing llvm patch then wait a bit so that (a) > people can experiment with the clang patch better (b) prevent the llvm/clang > patches to be both reverted, if some issue has been identified with the llvm > patch. Well, any later than Friday morning and it will have to wait until I get back from vacation. :) That isn't a big deal, though. and yeah, given the llvm patch had to be reverted twice, I'm fine w/ being a bit cautious. > (Don't worry that a feature doesn't have contiguous commits. It's common.) Yeah, I'm just trying to keep this stack up to date w/ the rebases. When I've let them get very much out of sync it's caused my headaches in the past w/ phabricator not being able to apply the patch or because I hadn't kept them up to date and downloaded the patch from phabricator. I really miss Gerrits ability to upload the whole stack at once and have all the correct relationships. IDK if things will be better w/ github PRs, but I guess we'll all find out soon. > I do not accept the lld part now, just to have more time to ensure the llvm > and clang part is mature :) No problem. There's still some non trivial test improvements to implement on those anyway. Plus I need to figure out how to handle the archive case, which I don't think will be very hard, but I haven't looked at that code yet either. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D146777/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D146777 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
