From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15375 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2010 11:00:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 14658 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2010 11:00:08 -0000 Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100406110008.14657.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/40436] [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852 In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenther at suse dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00467.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #31 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-04-06 11:00 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 regression] 0.5% code size regression caused by r147852 On Tue, 6 Apr 2010, steven at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 10:56 ------- > I think it is a really, really bad signal if a bug like this, where the > revision that introduced the issue was identified >9 months ago, remains > unfixed for GCC 4.5. > > I, for one, wouldn't care hunting down revisions that introduce regressions in > stage1 anymore, if component maintainers and release managers just postpone > fixing the issue until it is too late to fix for a release. Well, the fix doesn't fix this bug. There's no patch to fix this bug (yet). Also 0.5% code size increase doesn't look important enough to me. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40436