[Bug tree-optimization/21638] [4.1 regression] ADDR_EXPR invariancy not recomputed

[hp at bitrange dot com]

------- Additional Comments From hp at bitrange dot com  2005-05-19 14:07 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.1 regression] ADDR_EXPR invariancy
 not recomputed

On Thu, 19 May 2005, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it  2005-05-19 10:10 -------
> HP: people are expected to provide preprocessed source code even for bootstrap
> failures, let alone unified source tree builds for fancy platforms. This very
> bug shows how providing a preprocessed source made a quick fix possible.

Certainly, but it would have been even quicker if people were
already having simulator toolchains at hand, for testing their
patches or to verify bugs.  Thus I somewhat thought all
"bugmasters" would be familiar enough with them; hopefully using
them, but at least not one accusing me that I "shortcut rules"
when not immediately providing preprocessed source for a target
library there.

Newlib *is* special; it's part of the toolchain and builds
naturally together with simulator, binutils and gcc in one fell
swoop.  Much like one of the target libraries provided with gcc.
Would you ask people for preprocessed source for, say, libgcc?
Hm, maybe you would, by your indication of "bootstrap failures".

> So what are you exactly complaining for?

What complaint?  I'm replying to *your* complaint, and attempt
to lecture me on your interpretation of some "rule" you read,
presumably that we ask people for preprocessed source when
reporting bugs.

> If you want a bug fixed, be helpful
> like everybody does.

Eh, I think I was/did. :-)

> The fact that you are a maintainer does not buy you to
> shortcut rules and expect people to do the work in your place.

What?  Where did you get *that* from?  I resent that accusation!
I certainly don't expect bugs to be fixed just because I report
them in bugzilla.  I also don't expect a bugmaster to start an
inproductive argument, but that might be just because I'm a
maintainer. ;-)

I never expect people to fix a bug exposed by the targets I
maintain unless they're the one that made the bug or to some
extent when they write code that expose a bug.  So many thanks
to pinskia!  Much unexpected, very much appreciated.

Worth the enormous amount of work it takes to upload the
preprocessed sources. ;-)

brgds, H-P


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21638