This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [4.8 & 4.9] Backport of r211885


> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:04:49AM +0000, Yangfei (Felix) wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 11:00:24PM +0800, Felix Yang wrote:
> > > > The enclosed patch for 4.8 & 4.9 branch is a backport of r211885 from
> trunk.
> > > >
> > > > The only change is to use:
> > > >
> > > > for (def_rec = DF_INSN_INFO_DEFS (insn_info); *def_rec; def_rec++)
> > > >
> > > > other than the new FOR_EACH_INSN_INFO_DEF interface.
> > > >
> > > > Bootstrapped on x86_64-SUSE-Linux for both branches. OK to apply?
> > >
> > > ChangeLog entry is missing, plus description why do you want to backport
> it.
> > > If it fixes a bug on the branches, it would be better to have a
> > > bugzilla PR for that, and definitely a testcase.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, I will add a ChangeLog entry for this patch when it is committed.
> > I encountered the same issue when working on my local customized 4.8/4.9
> branches. Not reproduceable with the official 4.8/4.9 branches.
> > I thinks it's just an enhancement for the loop invariant pass to make it more
> versatile. It's better that 4.8/4.9 branches also inlcude this enhancement.
> > OK?
> 
> If it is just an enhancement, then those generally are not backported to release
> branches (exceptions possible of course, but there needs to be a strong reason).
> Each pass has some risk of breaking something, exposing previously only latent
> bugs in later passes etc.
> 
> 	Jakub

We can treat it as bugfix, as we got incorrect code when it triggers.
It just happens so rarely. Does it worth backporting?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]