This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: remove find_replacement. (pr24912 / pr25335)
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
- To: dje at watson dot ibm dot com (David Edelsohn)
- Cc: joern dot rennecke at st dot com (Joern RENNECKE), bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de (Bernd Schmidt), kenner at nyu dot edu, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org (GCC Patches)
- Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:00:51 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: RFC: remove find_replacement. (pr24912 / pr25335)
>
> >>>>> Joern RENNECKE writes:
>
> Joern> However, that causes a sequencing problem:
> Joern> the target milestone for PR25335 is gcc 4.1. While a simpler patch
> Joern> could be used for 4.1
> Joern> (the removal of find_replacements and its callers is basically a
> Joern> cleanup), we don't want
> Joern> to fix bugs on release branches before they are fixed on mainline.
> Joern> And leaving a sizeable chunk of code that isn't expected to do anything
> Joern> is not something that
> Joern> we want to do in mainline, particularily when it makes reload harder to
> Joern> understand.
>
> I think the s390 developers would be able to test this once the
> long-double-128 / Glibc patches have stabilized. PA and Alpha might be
> able to test now.
I should mention this is a regression unlike the long-double-128/glibc.
Why should a non regression have a priority over a patch which should
have been sought after sooner?
-- Pinski