[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)

[Richard Sandiford]

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.

Richard