From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24587 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2002 18:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24573 invoked by uid 71); 18 Jan 2002 18:26:01 -0000 Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020118182601.24572.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Phil Blundell Subject: Re: target/491: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn Reply-To: Phil Blundell X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00667.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/491; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Phil Blundell To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Cc: pb@gcc.gnu.org, chris@cgnet.cx, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: target/491: [ARM 4l] unrecognizable insn Date: 18 Jan 2002 18:20:30 +0000 On Fri, 2002-01-18 at 18:11, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > Bug confirmed to exist (indeed, positively notorious) > > I don't think this can occur in gcc-3.0 or later, since the way reload > handles these sort of problems has been radically altered. Okay, great. I'll have a go at re-testing it with 3.0. What are we doing about bugs that are fixed in 3.0 and/or the trunk, but still in 2.95? I guess there needs to come a time when keeping track of 2.95 bugs becomes more trouble than it's worth, but I dunno if that time is now. p.