http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59584
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8) > I still think this is not the correct definition of regression, I believe > regression is regressing against released compiler version. If somebody > commits a wrong change that magically fixes something and has to be reverted > the next day, the magically fixed issue doesn't all of sudden become a > regression because of that. Your suggestion to split up that definition would require *separate* definitions, markings and other related complications. Let's take that to the list if you insist. > Not to mention that Richard's change has not > been a fix for that, just unrelated change that made the problem in the cris > port latent. I see, on 2013-12-04, r205685:205709 for the 4.8 branch.
