Sounds good! Thanks for the help and the link. On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:12 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Jian, > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:57:54AM -0700, Jian Cai wrote: > > So this issue is blocking the LLVM upgrading on ChromeOS. Nathan, do > > you mind sending out the smaller patch like Nick suggested just to see > > what feedback we could get? I could send it for you if you are busy, > > and please let me know what tags I should use in that case. > > > > Thanks, > > Jian > > I will go ahead and send the smaller patch at some point today. > > For what it's worth, Nick brought up https://reviews.llvm.org/D100037, > which may be relevant here. > > Cheers, > Nathan > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:06 PM Nick Desaulniers > > <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:27:03PM -0700, Jian Cai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I just realized you already proposed solutions for skipping the check > > > > > in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20210310225240.4epj2mdmzt4vurr3@archlinux-ax161/#t. > > > > > Do you have any plans to send them for review? > > > > > > > > I was hoping to gather some feedback on which option would be preferred > > > > by Jens and the other ClangBuiltLinux folks before I sent them along. I > > > > can send the first just to see what kind of feedback I can gather. > > > > > > Either approach is fine by me. The smaller might be easier to get > > > accepted into stable. The larger approach will probably become more > > > useful in the future (having the diag infra work properly with clang). > > > I think the ball is kind of in Jens' court to decide. Would doing > > > both be appropriate, Jens? Have the smaller patch tagged for stable > > > disabling it for the whole file, then another commit on top not tagged > > > for stable that adds the diag infra, and a third on top replacing the > > > file level warning disablement with local diags to isolate this down > > > to one case? It's a fair but small amount of churn IMO; but if Jens > > > is not opposed it seems fine? > > > -- > > > Thanks, > > > ~Nick Desaulniers
