In D38897#908283, @gut wrote:

In D38897#903581, @clayborg wrote:

Looks fine. Thanks for doing the changes.

Hi, it's been already 4 days since this patch was accepted but not merged. Did something happen internally or we just need to wait a little longer?

In D38897#903581, @clayborg wrote:

Looks fine. Thanks for doing the changes.

In D39016#903973, @joerg wrote:

Long term, all sources should be changed to consistently use the human-friendly names, but that's a separate issue.

Just to show how much the disassembly is changed. Consider the following instruction:

li %r3,0

Thanks for supporting this change. I guess @anajuliapc will add you both as reviewer as soon as she updates this patch.

Alright, thanks for letting us know that there was no implicit rejection to this kind of functionality. We'll take a closer look and commandeer this review when the other review is available.

Hi. This change seems interesting, why wasn't it reviewed?

ok... now it looks fine!

Remove unused MachO detection for ppc64le

Remove unused MachO detection for ppc64le

Ops, wrong diff. Sorry (first time using archanist...)

In D36804#856362, @labath wrote:

IIUC, the conclusion was that we don't need the mach-o entry. Could you submit a version of the patch without it. I can't commit this right now, but @eugene should be able to do that for you.

@labath could you please commit this? I don't have commit access.

In D36804#845286, @gut wrote:

Can I please get some review on this?

ps: check comments on phabricator as it was not being published on lldb-commits mailing list.

Can I please get some review on this?

In D36804#844045, @nemanjai wrote:

Is this the first patch in a planned series that will provide ppc6le support in LLDB?