jdenny added a comment. In D61509#1493718 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1493718>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D61509#1493714 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1493714>, @jdenny wrote: > > > In D61509#1493703 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509#1493703>, @lebedev.ri > > wrote: > > > > > It would have been better to submit this refactor as a new patch.. > > > > > > Sorry, I didn't realize that was the norm. I can do that now if it would > > help. I can also revert changes to this patch if the goal is to make it > > easier to reference the old version. > > > I think that would be good. This current diff would be a simple NFC cleanup, > i think i will signoff it even. Thanks, I'll do that. For future reference, I assume abandoning and starting a new review is better here because I'm splitting the patch. Is there a more general rule of thumb on this? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D61509 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
