lebedev.ri added a comment. In D66324#2336555 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#2336555>, @lebedev.ri wrote:
> In D66324#2336186 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324#2336186>, @phosek wrote: > >> I apologize for the late response, I somehow missed the earlier responses. >> We have successfully used this feature in Fuchsia and found it useful, but I >> agree that the issues raised need to be addressed. Unfortunately @paulkirth >> is no longer working on this project. I hope that someone from our team can >> take a look but it might take a few weeks. If you prefer, we could revert >> this change and then reland an improved version in the future? > > I would very much prefer *NOT* not revert if someone is going to step up to > work on these problems soon (within next 4 weeks?). > > That being said, in light of that bug, my original doubts about the > underlying data type (a novel `MD_misexpect`, > with structure different from `MD_prof`) have reappeared with double > strength. I really think they should share underlying type. I'll be posting a revert soon. Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D66324 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
