[Bug target/16130] [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid code

["wilson at specifixinc dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com  2004-06-23 23:54 -------
Subject: Re:  New: [3.4 Regression]: Gcc 3.4 ICE on valid
 code

hjl at lucon dot org wrote:
> BTW, gcc 3.4 has many Itanium 1 regressions. I think we should either remove
> Itanium 1 support or fix all regressions.

I tried to respond to this in bug #15653, but since that was closed 
already, and this one is still open, I will repeat some of it here.

As far as I know, we can't remove the Itanium 1 support because you are 
using it.  If you really aren't using it, then you should either stop 
reporting bugs against it, or else you should indicate so in your bug 
reports, so we know that they are not problems that need to be fixed.

Reporting lots of problems will not encourage people to fix Itanium1 
bugs.  All it does is add to my workload.  There are already more IA-64 
bugs than I have time to fix, so this just makes things worse.  If these 
problems are really not important, then I would like to know.  There are 
other things I could be doing, such as fixing the SPEC benchmark 
miscompilation problem, or the profilebootstrap failure.

Removing the Itanium1 support is an awefully big hammer.  If we remove 
it, it will probably never come back.  There are other less radical 
things that can be done, such as disabling the Itanium1 DFA, or adding 
an error() call to indicate that it is known to be broken.

If we are removing Itanium1 support, then are we also removing it from 
other packages too?  The linux kernel?  Binutils?  You explicitly added 
Itanium1 support to binutils a few months ago after I tried to remove 
it, so my understanding was we still needed Itanium1 support everywhere.

I don't mind getting meta-bugs when other major GNU/Linux packages are 
involved.  I suspect all of your testcases are coming from the linux 
kernel, in which case a single bug reporting that is probably much more 
useful than the 6 or so separate bugs you have reported so far.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16130