RFC: LRA for x86/x86-64 [0/9]

[Steven Bosscher]

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:55:56 -0700
>
>> Steven is correct in saying that there is a tendency to move on and
>> never address GCC bugs.  However, there is also a counter-vailing
>> tendency to fix GCC bugs.  Anyhow I'm certainly not saying that in all
>> cases it's OK to accept a merge with regressions; I'm saying that in
>> this specific case it is OK.
>
> I think it's more important in this case to recognize Steven's real
> point, which is that for an identical situation (IRA), and with an
> identical patch author, we had similar bugs.  They were promised to be
> worked on, and yet some of those regressions are still very much with
> us.

My point is not to single out Vlad here! I don't think this patch
author is any worse or better than the next one. There are other
examples enough, e.g. VRP is from other contributors and it has had a
few horrible pieces of code from the start that just don't get
addressed, or var-tracking for which cleaning up a few serious compile
time problems will be a Big Job for stage3. It's the general pattern
that worries me.

Ciao!
Steven