From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dewar@gnat.com
To: Marc.Espie@liafa.jussieu.fr, dewar@gnat.com
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [GCC 3.0] Bad regression, binary size
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 07:50:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010709145034.A2D44F2B21@nile.gnat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-07/msg00605.html

<<If it causes us not to be able to switch to gcc 3.0.x six months from now,
it is quite serious, from my point of view...
>>

There are many reasons why a specific project might not want to switch
to a new version of the compiler, but that does not mean there is a serious
regression. For example, a project might be depending on a bug, now fixed,
and thus be delayed in switching versions of the compiler, but that does
not make it a regression.

it is really helpful NOT to overuse the technical term regression, which
simply means that *with respect to the target specifications* there is
an instance of failing to meet specs where before the spec was met.

THat's not the case here, there was no spec that your particular program
generate 0.98X space instead of 1.00X space