On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 at 10:58, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Thanks. Let's move the discussion there.
4-early ping.. Thanks to Yuri for his remark there. Just asking if any of you folks had more comments? thanks, > > 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,
