On 17 April 2014 19:01, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer > <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 17 April 2014 16:51:23 Konstantin Serebryany >> <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer >>> <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > On 17 April 2014 16:07, Konstantin Serebryany >>> > <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> If you are trying to modify the libsanitizer files, please read here: >>> >> https://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToContribute >>> > >>> > I read that, thanks. Patch 3/3 is for current compiler-rt git repo, >>> > please install it there, i do not have write access to the LLVM nor >>> > compiler-rt trees. >>> >>> I can commit your patch to llvm tree only after you follow the process >>> described on that page. >>> Sorry, this is a hard rule. >> >> >> What part of the process do you think I did not follow? >> >> I made a patch for compiler-rt, sent it to llvm-comm...@cs.uiuc.edu then >> provided the corresponding GCC parts, along a backport of the new bits that >> I expect to be overwritten once you do a new merge, leaving just the GCC >> configuy bits. This is how I read the wiki page you cite. >> >> Please tell me what you expect me to do differently? > > First, I did not notice that you've sent it to llvm-commits because it > was also sent to the gcc list (unusual thing to happen) > and got filtered into the gcc part of my mail. Sorry. > But second, the patch is far from trivial and you should not expect us > to commit it w/o a careful review, > so here comes another part of the wiki: "For non-trivial patches > please use Phabricator -- this will help us reply faster."
http://reviews.llvm.org/D3464 thanks,
