From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 38817 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2019 10:37:53 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 38808 invoked by uid 89); 9 Aug 2019 10:37:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=ahead X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 10:37:52 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B429A72642; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-200.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.200]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B05F5C226; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 10:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x79AblRL021079; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:37:47 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x79AbjMi021078; Fri, 9 Aug 2019 12:37:45 +0200 Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2019 11:01:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Bernd Edlinger Cc: Vladimir Makarov , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] [LRA] Fix wrong-code PR 91109 Message-ID: <20190809103745.GZ2726@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <6a79fb83-d6d5-63fa-c16e-ccea9d2f93ca@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00620.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 10:31:57AM +0000, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > I think this wrong code bug would be good to be fixed in 9.2. > > Would you like me to go ahead, or should it wait for 9.3 ? Wait for 9.2.1 reopening, even if we'd roll another RC, I'd be afraid that for RA changes, especially ones that aren't a severe recent regression like this, there is not enough time to have it tested enough. Jakub