[PATCH, committed] Fix PR 57422
Mon Jan 6 16:52:00 GMT 2014
On 12/27/13 03:16, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 02:11:13PM +0400, Andrey Belevantsev wrote:
>>> Testcase is very small. Why not add it?
>> Frankly, I think that the chances of this test uncovering similar
>> issues in the future are very small. It needs lots of options to
>> make it trigger and even with this a specific revision. The chance
>> of triggering the asserts I added on another code is much higher.
>> In the past, I have also avoided to add tests that require 5+
>> options to trigger the issue, adding only those that have some hope
>> on more ore less reliably reproducing the required issue. The best
>> solution of course is having an infrastructure to test the specific
>> scheduler decisions, which we don't have.
>> You are welcome to add the test if you feel so strongly about us needing it.
> I guess it depends, if you e.g. have a small runtime testcase, it might be
> useful to add it, while it is unlikely it will trigger the same issue, it
> could trigger a different issue in another part of the compiler, especially
> if the testcase is a combination of e.g. several more rarely used features.
> But for a ICE testcase with many weird options to trigger it I agree it
> sometimes doesn't make sense to add the testcase, especially if it already
> doesn't trigger on the trunk as in this case.
IIRC, for this particular bug it also heavily depended on the exact
register allocation at a key point. So it could easily go latent on the
More information about the Gcc-patches