From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jwakely@redhat.com>
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com
 (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.120])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404CF3861893
 for <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:38:54 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 404CF3861893
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com
 [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id
 us-mta-45-pNxGHzatO42gzjO1-HkGwQ-1; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 10:38:50 -0400
X-MC-Unique: pNxGHzatO42gzjO1-HkGwQ-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com
 [10.5.11.13])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1CFA8015CE;
 Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:38:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.33.36.2])
 by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 789088AE15;
 Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:38:48 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:38:47 +0100
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
To: haoxintu@gmail.com
Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, richard.sandiford@arm.com
Subject: Re: How GCC treats ice-on-invalid-code?
Message-ID: <20200630143847.GA3488494@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <mptpn9g7kni.fsf@arm.com>
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
 DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:38:55 -0000

> These are the “true” ice-on-invalid-code bugs, i.e. those that are
> meant to be classified as “ice-on-invalid-code” instead of “error-recovery”
> in bugzilla.  They generally get much more attention than “error-recovery”
> bugs.

And even those are lower priority than ice-on-valid bugs, and IMHO
lower priority than rejects-valid bugs.

It's fine to file these ice-on-invalid bugs, but don't be surprised if
nobody has time to work on bugs that are only triggered by unrealistic
garbage input.