This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ping: Re: [patch middle-end]: Fix PR/48814 - [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect scalar increment result
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:29:08 +0000
- Subject: Re: Ping: Re: [patch middle-end]: Fix PR/48814 - [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Incorrect scalar increment result
- References: <CAEwic4a8P-xbjDfiYNyj6jJXW07c1asE8xC6JBRvbX56kM63Mg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc21SsPcCNmqfyrrC__HB0yd8BMi=JKdsRqyu_cDawN6dw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEwic4abEtJ5nTMtHgckOU2bnoV0cQTNQtqouWvg2QRZU7GLRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc26UOq4nGKm9iaT6nHqh3KVX0DtfQCMofOaezyOK3fcNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc3da8nBg6Mffs+uxuYBhY6VYytpyx0wUyvyQ4mXkJkAKw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEwic4aEQ1nhF7f7stNky=kg4FQUEOrbisDU35MkPeHt1N_67Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0WeCoDFvgRe-Qg+HXm5rJNenjZ356fLfkqjHM5353uQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAEwic4YWJriFkeTfyxn-SO4mxunbNkUzod2+UrRHAoHoU65LSg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0m-AqL2pRpaqALxAKiJNPJoH2qFRO-22OJKZLxTAFGQA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc22oS_yEypAaVtObDWeu5EdHRRB6p1=rOT0Z9Lcppsqaw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc16fCxOZAyaruwMSj81o-efZ=2LO_Wksac_sjKOP2Ox+g@mail.gmail.com> <CAEwic4ZO=1HtNSg=zn7Bheu9QcmbZMFa5a3x8pedQNN85E6Qcw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc08Pf8QgENy9yd8rZ_R61WwFFcTRHyYp3MO3dvUpqLRJg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0x26_YsG4F9y+8u5tw3HaRFdZTO=2cze2-dCRkqSjFEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAEwic4bJ=Hj8Jj0+oTcnyVaFqipDBXDatWOU1=f4ah=LnuDLeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc0sm5UxEEBu_W64ZcHqX9BFpDrR=1Y3iDq1WvmGvEy9Tg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEwic4bQE5Pd27waG_xnYnCzyM3RX8r82JxCD3r471hbHrcYtg@mail.gmail.com> <CAEwic4ZG6SvFPTbjpd4Kj5azFNPTVGVANx0NYwmAXvEYT6H4Uw@mail.gmail.com> <CAFiYyc3mcSmKqq6mTvHKvTG6BQomR=ypiu4NA10qTW1HHfAS5w@mail.gmail.com>
On 15 March 2012 15:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Kai Tietz <ktietz70@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Richard,
>>
>> ping. ?I think now could be a good time for applying the patch you
>> have for this issue as we are in stage 1.
>
> It will still regress the two libstdc++ testcases (well, I guess so at least).
>
> Jonathan - you didn't answer my reply to your question? ?Would it be ok
> to apply this patch with leaving the regressions in-place, to be investigated
> by libstdc++ folks?
Sorry, I've either forgotten or missed the reply - but if you think
the problem is in libstdc++ then certainly go ahead and apply it, I'll
investigate the libstdc++ problems (and ask for help if they defeat
me!)