This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug rtl-optimization/25514] [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency failure
- From: "mark at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 5 Jan 2007 18:37:56 -0000
- Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/25514] [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency failure
- References: <bug-25514-11770@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #19 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-05 18:37 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency
failure
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> ------- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 18:33 -------
>> Do you mean positive cascading effects, in that bugs go away, or
>> negative, in that new bugs show up?
>
> Positive cascading effects if the set of patch is backported to the branch.
>
>> Do you think that backporting this patch is going to fix some bugs at the
>> expense of breaking others?
>
> That will very likely fix again 28243 and help for 29329. I can make a quick
> pass on the various related PRs for mainline/4.2/4.1 over the week-end and
> post kind of an overview of the situation before you definitely decide.
I think I can do best by deferring to you, Roger, and Richard.
It sounds like everyone's agreed that Richard's changes are the right
thing, in principle. It also sounds like they have had little (no?)
negative affect in practice. As long as we don't feel that we're unduly
introducing risk (fixing one thing but breaking another), I'm all for
putting the patches on the branch.
I know Richard's busy (he's getting ready to submit a big batch of
changes), so if you feel like trying the backport you might want to give
it a go. Otherwise, I'm sure Richard will get to it in the relatively
near future.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25514