https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61047
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #21) > > I think that the patch is clear in scope, only fixes a specific case unless > > rtx_addr_can_trap_p_1() was refactored, it should be feasible to apply to > > trunk, 5.1 and 4.9. > > No, the patch is way too risky and will very likely introduce more bugs than > it fixes, let alone performance regressions. There are dozens of open PRs > reported for real-life software that need to be fixed, but this one is _not_ > one of them. I agree that this is too risky to backport, but I disagree with the decision not to fix it on the trunk. We have plenty of time to watch for performance regressions and/or bugs it introduces there, and even if this bug is only hit by machine generated code, it would be helpful to all the people that try to report bugs against gcc if they wouldn't have to analyze and then ignore similar cases every few days because we chose to never fix it on the gcc side.
