From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14584 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2007 11:07:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 14548 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2007 11:07:35 -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, 29 Sep 2007 11:07:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6181663DD; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:07:19 +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 oc+KpchBCNB6; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:07:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (dyn-83-152-231-106.ppp.tiscali.fr [83.152.231.106]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by province.act-europe.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6F5165B16; Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:07:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Eric Botcazou To: "Richard Guenther" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix optimization regression in constant folder Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "Ian Lance Taylor" References: <200709171539.26653.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <200709290820.14448.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <84fc9c000709290327r2fec6a1fw6433ee24f9ed40aa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <84fc9c000709290327r2fec6a1fw6433ee24f9ed40aa@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709291309.00169.ebotcazou@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-09/txt/msg02062.txt.bz2 > You still didn't come up with an optimization testcase which I asked for > in the initial reply. Because it's time consuming. The problem was identified on a 4.1-based compiler (you applied the patch on the 4.1 branch too so it was picked for our pre-production compiler and broke 2 big proprietary testcases there). Things have changed between 4.1 and 4.3 so the 2 testcases don't fail with the latter like with the former and further work would be required. > And I won't make the decision on the patch (because I'm not convinced), but > defer that to Ian. OK. -- Eric Botcazou