This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: bugs fixed on the tree-ssa
- From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- Cc: Bugzilla Masters <bugzilla-masters at dberlin dot org>,Gcc ML <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:21:21 -0800
- Subject: Re: bugs fixed on the tree-ssa
- References: <16F8353D-3020-11D8-A083-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 03:32:18PM -0800, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> For performance bugs (and some other non-regression bugs) fixed on the
> tree-ssa branch, I have just been suspending them.
> Would be closing be the safe bet or should I just keep them suspended?
At first I was going to suggest marking them as fixed with target milestone
set to tree-ssa. But on further reflection, that might cause us to miss
something important: if it's a recently introduced regression, we might
really want to fix it for 3.4 or even 3.3.3, and marking it fixed might
cause the issue to be missed.
My suggestion is as follows: if it's a non-regression, and we don't plan
to try to fix it for 3.4, marking it as fixed in tree-ssa seems right.
If it's a regression on the trunk or 3.3 branch, I think we should leave
it open, just noting in the audit trail that tree-ssa fixes it.