patch rereview requested for PRs 6860, 10467 and 11741

Gabriel Dos Reis gdr@integrable-solutions.net
Sun Sep 21 04:07:00 GMT 2003


kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:

|     Indeed, the full motivation for why the patch is believed to be
|     correct have been presented several times.  The "before, we'd ICE"
|     was a counter argument against the silly claims the patch would
|     introduce new regressions.
| 
| If you hadn't used the word "silly", I'd agree.  Showing that all a patch
| does is turn something that used to ICE into something else is an
| exceptionally convincing proof that the patch can't break a bootstrap or
| introduce regressions.

However, that sole argument is not sufficiently convincing, int that
it may turn an ICE into bad code generation.  I'd rather an ICE than a
silent bad code generation.

| However, that is only *one* requirement that a potential patch must meet.

agreed.

-- Gaby



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list