[r11-3641 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/pta-ptrarith-1.c -Os scan-tree-dump alias "ESCAPED = {[^\n}]* i f [^\n}]*}" on Linux/x86_64 (-m32 -march=cascadelake)

[Segher Boessenkool]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 01:24:44PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> > On 10/4/20 10:51 AM, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 5:57 PM Segher Boessenkool
> >> <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 12:21:04PM -0700, sunil.k.pandey via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>> On Linux/x86_64,
> >>>>
> >>>> c34db4b6f8a5d80367c709309f9b00cb32630054 is the first bad commit
> >>>> commit c34db4b6f8a5d80367c709309f9b00cb32630054
> >>>> Author: Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.cz>
> >>>> Date:   Sat Oct 3 17:20:16 2020 +0200
> >>>>
> >>>>      Track access ranges in ipa-modref
> >>>>
> >>>> caused
> >>>
> >>> [ ... ]
> >>>
> >>> This isn't a patch.  Wrong mailing list?
> >> 
> >> I view this as a follow up of
> >> 
> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/555314.html
> >> 
> >> What do people think about this kind of followups?  Is this appropriate
> >> for this mailing list?
> >
> > A number of people routinely send emails similar to these to this
> > list to point out regressions on their targets.  I find both kinds
> > of emails very useful and don't mind the additional traffic.
> 
> +1 FWIW.  I think it's great that we have this kind of automatic CI, and
> this seems like a natural place to send the reports.  Shovelling them into
> bugzilla is likely to create more work rather than less, especially since
> the fix turnaround should (hopefully) be short.

But send them as reply to the patch discussion then!


Segher