public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/61047] [4.9/5/6 Regression] wrong code at -O1 on x86_64-linux
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:12:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-61047-4-n2B7yl6rPA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-61047-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #21)
> > I think that the patch is clear in scope, only fixes a specific case unless
> > rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1() was refactored, it should be feasible to apply to
> > trunk, 5.1 and 4.9.
>
> No, the patch is way too risky and will very likely introduce more bugs than
> it fixes, let alone performance regressions. There are dozens of open PRs
> reported for real-life software that need to be fixed, but this one is _not_
> one of them.
I agree that this is too risky to backport, but I disagree with the decision
not to fix it on the trunk. We have plenty of time to watch for performance
regressions and/or bugs it introduces there, and even if this bug is only hit
by machine generated code, it would be helpful to all the people that try to
report bugs against gcc if they wouldn't have to analyze and then ignore
similar cases every few days because we chose to never fix it on the gcc side.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-10 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-03 17:39 [Bug rtl-optimization/61047] New: " su at cs dot ucdavis.edu
2014-05-03 21:11 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/61047] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-05 9:12 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/61047] [4.9/4.10 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-05-09 11:01 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-08 14:46 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2014-06-08 15:03 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2014-06-08 15:17 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2014-06-11 20:02 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2014-07-16 13:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-30 10:40 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/61047] [4.9/5 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-12 16:13 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-13 6:54 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2015-01-13 8:24 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-01-13 8:37 ` zsojka at seznam dot cz
2015-01-13 8:43 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2015-01-13 9:25 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-02-12 12:59 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-11 0:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-10 15:46 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/61047] [4.9/5/6 " bernhard.kaindl at thalesgroup dot com
2015-06-10 16:05 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-10 16:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2015-06-10 16:16 ` bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de
2015-06-10 16:23 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:19 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-06-26 20:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-07-01 16:11 ` edlinger at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-61047-4-n2B7yl6rPA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).