On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 10:03 AM Iain Sandoe <idsan...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 5:57 PM Segher Boessenkool > > <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 12:21:04PM -0700, sunil.k.pandey via Gcc-patches > >> wrote: > >>> On Linux/x86_64, > >>> > >>> c34db4b6f8a5d80367c709309f9b00cb32630054 is the first bad commit > >>> commit c34db4b6f8a5d80367c709309f9b00cb32630054 > >>> Author: Jan Hubicka <j...@suse.cz> > >>> Date: Sat Oct 3 17:20:16 2020 +0200 > >>> > >>> Track access ranges in ipa-modref > >>> > >>> caused > >> > >> [ ... ] > >> > >> This isn't a patch. Wrong mailing list? > > > > I view this as a follow up of > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/555314.html > > > > What do people think about this kind of followups? Is this appropriate > > for this mailing list? > > it seems quite noisy - and I wonder how effective; mailing list traffic > goes by and is forgotten.
The email is sent out only when a commit causes a regression. It is noisy only when a commit causes regressions in GCC testsuites. We can make it less noisy by ....... > ISTM that a much neater solution would be to raise a BZ and add the commit > author as CC’d > > … but that might be too hard to implement? This email is generated by an automated script. Does GCC BZ have an email gateway? -- H.J.
