From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21915 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2007 18:18:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 21906 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2007 18:18:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from province.act-europe.fr (HELO province.act-europe.fr) (212.157.227.214) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:18:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D95165240; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:18:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from province.act-europe.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (province.act-europe.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PxKY4iWrPvZg; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:18:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (dyn-88-123-222-24.ppp.tiscali.fr [88.123.222.24]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E231651EB; Sat, 7 Jul 2007 20:18:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: "Andrew Pinski" Subject: Re: PR/32004, tree-ssa caused in/out asm constraints to often need reloads Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2007 18:30:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: bonzini@gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "Mark Mitchell" References: <468CC82F.2060702@lu.unisi.ch> <200707071702.30366.ebotcazou@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200707072023.25902.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00646.txt.bz2 > His patch did not even touch local-alloc.c at all or anything which > could have caused this directly (rtl.def). So this is a latent bug. It might well be, but did you investigate? > The main reason why he applied it without any approval is based on the > rule that the bug is a regression and it was approved for the trunk. You don't put a brand new pass on a branch that is in maintenance mode, especially if you cannot disable it, precisely because you don't know how it will interact with the rest of the compiler. If Paolo had requested approval for the 4.1 branch, I'd have opposed. -- Eric Botcazou