This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:46:12 -0800
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535
References: <20040316003346.GA31411@twiddle.net> <m3hdwp5qas.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0403160931560.90675@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <m3smg9qjc8.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403161257010.26679@wotan.suse.de> <m3k71kvmef.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>

On Mar 16, 2004, at 07:31, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

Michael Matz <matz@suse.de> writes:

| Hi,

I agree a coordination is desirable, but:

The bug being fixed is already a regression.  So the question is only
how far or close you move the regression point.  I don't think
applying the patch itself introduces a regression.
We ought to be careful not about use of "regression".

Why are we arguing about a patch which Mark is already said okay for 3.4.0? See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14535#c7> for the approval.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

References:
- [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer
- Re: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535
  - From: Michael Matz
- Re: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]