From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23969 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2005 05:44:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23913 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2005 05:44:27 -0000 Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 06:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050827054427.23912.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050306130835.20348.pepster@users.sourceforge.net> References: <20050306130835.20348.pepster@users.sourceforge.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug preprocessor/20348] [4.0/4.1 Regression] File not included when file with same name is included before X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg03119.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk 2005-08-27 05:44 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] File not included when file with same name is included before jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:- > > ------- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-26 15:57 ------- > This got broken by the libcpp/files.c part of > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-06/msg00272.html > My understanding of the change was that this was just a performance improvement. > The question is if that change is fixable to handle this and keep the > improvements where they can be used, or if it should be reverted. I would back it out; I suspect the perceived performance improvement came from missing some cases like these. IMO the code was already quite efficient. Neil. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20348