[Bug target/105753] [avr] ICE: in add_clobbers, at config/avr/avr-dimode.md:2705

["user99627 at gmx dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105753

--- Comment #14 from User99627 <user99627 at gmx dot com> ---
(In reply to fiesh from comment #13)
> User99627, a few points:
> 
> * My test case does require lto to be present.  There's nothing to be gained
> from your statement that the bug doesn't require lto, there are test cases
> for either case.  The reason I included it is that it may exhibit different
> behavior which may or may not stem from a separate bug, so it's worth
> checking if both test cases are resolved by a resolution to this issue.

That's why I added information about the *very* same error message from avr-gcc
in which link time optimizations don't matter.


> * While this appears to be of life or death importance to you, this may not
> be the same for everyone working on gcc, as reflected by its P3 importance.

No, it doesn't.

That's your (false) interpretation, probably trying to ridicule my
investigation (let's fancy a little about intentions). Or you're just
(intentionally?) conflating "losing patience" with "life and death matters".
See my longer comment below...


> * Why do you use "dysfunctional software?"  You should avoid doing that.

Why do some distribution maintainers keep dysfunctional software? They should
avoid that, don't you think.

You're resorting to a common fallacy called "reversing the burden of proof".
Well tried.

We could go in circles like this for a long, long while...


> * Attacking people usually does not improve their willingness to help you,
> especially when you don't pay them to help you.

Is a forced standby and rejecting righteous clues patiently collected by users
going to gain respect? I'm not attacking people, if you read carefully again.
I'm attacking an *attitude* that looks like disdain (confirmed by this comment,
which I'm replying to) and carelessness. Difference.


> * While you failed to provide anything meaningful to the bug report (your
> code snippet is not self-contained valid C code;  no one here will care
> about your attempts to get package maintainers of software distributions to
> do something stupid and restrict the versions of software they include based
> on your preferences),

I failed?

Nothing meaningful?

So installing the Arduino IDE on your machine and test the sketch I provided
with avr-gcc 11 or above is asking too much, obviously...

That is hypocritical, I mean the attitude and the comment.

Shall I post the complete Arduino library, plus the complete set of make and
build commands (which I did!) to finally get some attention? What if it were a
very complex case of internal bug that only requires a complex set of files for
the bug to show itself?

It's really, *really* easy to ditch my investigation and researches, pretending
I brought nothing useful.

Mind you, I DID provide *all* the information strictly required to reproduce
the bug. Yet, this is judged insufficient.

I've been banging my head against a wall for months now, wondering what to do
because nobody would budge and the responsibility appears left upon users to
find themselves a workaround while, obviously, avr-gcc crashes in specific
cases, the investigation of which is completely denied and trashed by such
comments.

> [...] you are still welcome to fix the bug in gcc and provide a patch yourself.

Oh, that's really low. Is that all of your argumentation? Adding insult to
injury?

Please, stop this hypocrisy, really.

Besides, if you're really careful, you'll realize some user posted the actual
regression and GIT commit that caused the regression (see comment #4). So
basically you're admitting you're ignoring that and asking me to redo the work.
It has already been done and yet ignored, so your suggestion is at best an
insult.

Just tell me: when you find a hole in the street that causes motorcycles to
break their wheel (including yours), do you accept the administration to tell
you that you haven't brought insufficient proof and to tell you to repair the
hole yourself?

Because that's exactly what you're doing.

_____


Now, trying to be constructive. What do you expect from me? Is there a limit to
the number of files required to exhibit the bug? If I post a complete makefile
with build instructions, will this bug be investigated?