On 31 May 2013 17:13, Malea, Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm, so while that approach might work in this case, it won't be fun to > maintain this correct ordering in the long run. If you have a moment, > could you try the below fix instead? I think it's a more generic solution > to the problem at hand. If it works, I will commit post haste.
Right, I just wanted to verify that it was (only) a link ordering problem. I can confirm that it works with your patch. _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
