https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65358
--- Comment #23 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to ktkachov from comment #22) > (In reply to James Greenhalgh from comment #21) > > As this has been failing since GCC 4.6.3, it is not a regression and > > therefore Kyrill's fix would not be appropriate for Stage 4. > > > > It may be that the release managers make an exception for this fix, given > > that it can cause wrong-code generation on a primary target. Otherwise, I'd > > expect this to get fixed in 6.0 and backported as appropriate. > > Richard/Jakub? > > Yeah, I agree it's not a regression on the release branches, but we did have > wrong-code fixes in stage4 before (like for PR 65235). > My fix should only ever trigger in the case where we would definitely > miscompile otherwise, and should not impact codegen in any other case. > > I don't mind waiting till stage 1 and backporting later. Up to the > maintainers/release managers. It's fine to fix wrong-code regressions in stage4 if they are obviously safe.
