On 4/5/19 8:47 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Joern Rennecke <joern.renne...@embecosm.com> writes: >> On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 at 11:07, Richard Sandiford >> <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> 2019-04-04 Joern Rennecke <joern.renne...@embecosm.com> >>>> >>>> * sched-deps.c (sched_macro_fuse_insns): Check return value of >>>> targetm.fixed_condition_code_regs. >>> >>> OK, thanks. >> >> Thanks for the review. >> >> Is that OK restricted to delayed applying once the gcc 9 branch has >> been cut and gcc 10 stage 1 opened (because the bug is not a >> regression unless going back to 2013) >> or also OK to apply to the current 9.0.0 trunk (since this should be a >> safe patch and leaving the bug in might hinder debugging to find >> actual regressions) ? > > OK now IMO. A regression from 2013 is still a regression, and like > you say, it should be very safe. I think arm is the only affected > in-tree port, and it's only going to help there. Agreed. Even if we didn't have an active regression, this kind of error is painful enough to debug that I'd rather have it squashed now :-)
jeff
