From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15794 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2004 20:52:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15776 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2004 20:52:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lewis.CNS.CWRU.Edu) (129.22.104.62) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 20:52:09 -0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.smtp-b.cwru.edu by smtp-b.cwru.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) id <0HRU00401XBCQ9@smtp-b.cwru.edu> for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:52:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from multivac.cwru.edu (multivac.ITS.CWRU.Edu [129.22.114.26]) by smtp-b.cwru.edu (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with SMTP id <0HRU0025YXYWSM@smtp-b.cwru.edu> for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:52:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 25587 invoked by uid 500); Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:52:30 +0000 Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 20:59:00 -0000 From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Subject: Re: Readiness of tree-ssa In-reply-to: <200401211446.04734.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> To: Wolfgang Bangerth Cc: Diego Novillo , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , Gerald Pfeifer , Richard Guenther , Brian Booth Mail-followup-to: Wolfgang Bangerth , Diego Novillo , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , Gerald Pfeifer , Richard Guenther , Brian Booth Message-id: Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) References: <200401201348.42927.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> <200401211416.07981.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> <1074717720.20018.67.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <200401211446.04734.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01688.txt.bz2 Wolfgang Bangerth wrote: > However, my understanding was that merging a branch usually requires > zero new regressions. Just a thought: one new regression could be allowed for each regression that is fixed on the branch but not on mainline - so zero *net* new regressions. I don't remember exactly whether there are any in this case anyway. paul