Re: [avr-llvm-devel] About rev 108

[Weddington, E. <Eri...@at...>]

I kinda thought that doing it incrementally would keep overall hassles to a minimum, plus it keeps us aware of what's happening on the trunk, rather than keep working on old stuff. I think that was the rationale, though admittedly I think that none of us has really strong opinions about it.

Eric Weddington

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Borja Ferrer [mailto:bor...@gm...]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 4:28 PM
> To: avr...@li...
> Subject: Re: [avr-llvm-devel] About rev 108
> 
> Well, i dont really care either, my current local setup is to only support
> v2.8 and not trunk, this was my though on how it was going to be done. I
> noticed these changes in llvm's rep but didnt apply them because my idea
> was to merge them once we switched to 2.9.
> So if we have to work with trunk as the codebase instead of 2.8 now is the
> moment to decide.
> 
> 
> 2010/11/17 John Myers <ato...@gm...>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 	On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Borja Ferrer
> <bor...@gm...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 		Hello John i'm not at home now to check this but i've noticed
> your last commit introduces a change that im unsure now if it's compatible
> with our current code base which is v2.8.
> 
> 		--------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------
> 
> 
> 	Yeah, the last few commits have been to synchronize with the LLVM
> trunk. I guess this is one if the development decisions we should have
> discussed before continuing. The way we were doing it before was to try to
> keep the avr-llvm trunk up to date with the LLVM trunk.
> 
> 	There are pros and cons for both methods (incremental vs. single
> shot). The other devs wanted to incrementally keep up with the LLVM trunk,
> but personally I don't have a strong opinion either way.
>