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

[Borja F. <bor...@gm...>]

I agree that doing it incrementally simplifies the work instead of doing it
all once. I'll switch my current setup and use the llvm repository, agreed?

2010/11/18 Weddington, Eric <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.
> >
>
>