This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] cse (canon_reg): Don't modify insns without using validate_change
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
- Cc: Andreas Krebbel <krebbel1 at de dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 15:44:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] cse (canon_reg): Don't modify insns without using validate_change
- References: <20060530080425.GA3122@de.ibm.com> <447C2CD4.2000002@t-online.de> <20060530121614.GA3843@de.ibm.com> <447C4339.5000107@t-online.de> <20060530165253.GA4590@de.ibm.com> <447D9229.3050201@t-online.de> <20060531131512.GA4390@de.ibm.com> <447ED8FC.1040402@t-online.de>
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Andreas Krebbel wrote:
>>>> Ok for gcc 4.1 branch as well?
>>> Is it a regression?
>> I could reproduce the failure only with the -march=z9-109 option which is
>> new in gcc 4.1.0. So it is a regression against 4.0 right?!
>
> Technically, no if it's using a new switch. Mark's call I think.
It's not a regression if it's a new switch. If this were a
target-specific change, I'd be happy to let the target maintainer make
the call, but if it's a change to generic code, then I'd like to see it
justified very clearly. Let's get it into the mainline first, if not
already. Then, if you want to backport it, please prepare the backport,
test it, and post that version, copying me.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713