This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug rtl-optimization/15248] [4.0 Regression] Reload may generate stores to read-only memory
- From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 3 May 2005 19:35:37 -0000
- Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/15248] [4.0 Regression] Reload may generate stores to read-only memory
- References: <20040502130145.15248.ebotcazou@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From mark at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-03 19:35 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Reload may generate
stores to read-only memory
Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-30 at 22:10 +0000, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
> wrote:
>
>>------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-30 22:10 -------
>>The same fix was applied to mainline. Jeff, please consider backporting your
>>patch to 4.0 branch so that we be definitely done with this nasty problem.
>
> No strong opinions here -- it's certainly a latent bug, but triggering
> it is relatively difficult with 4.0.
>
> Basically we need to evaluate the risk/reward. We can fix this with the
> exact same patch that we're using in mainline right now which hasn't
> caused us any problems yet. That patch is also very similar to what was
> done for one or more of the 3.x release branches. I consider the patch
> relatively safe.
>
> What's the reward -- a latent code generation bug is fixed.
>
> So is the reward worth the small risk the patch poses?
>
> [ Note that if we had a bug report with 4.0 which was traceable to
> this problem, then I'd clearly land on the side of installing the
> patch. ]
I don't know that I'm in a position to make a good decision here, but I
do agree with Jeff -- it would be a lot more compelling to make the
change if there was actually a demonstrable problem -- especially coming
from non-synthetic code.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15248