Thanks. Let's move the discussion there.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: > 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,
