On Tue, 2 Feb 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote: > > On 2021-01-18 7:50 a.m., Richard Biener wrote: > > > On Mon, 18 Jan 2021, Przemyslaw Wirkus wrote: > > > > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Can we backport PR97969 patch to GCC 10 and (maybe) GCC 9 ?: > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97969 > > >> > > >> IMHO bug is severe and could land in GCC 10 and 9. Vladimir's original > > patch: > > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-January/563322.html > > >> applies without changes to both gcc-10 and gcc-9. > > >> > > >> I've regression tested this patch on both gcc-10 and gcc-9 branched > > >> for > > >> x86_64 cross (arm-eabi target) and no issues. > > >> > > >> OK for gcc-10 and gcc-9 ? > > > I see two fallout PRs with a trivial search: PR98643 and PR98722. LRA > > > patches quite easily trigger unexpected fallout unfortunately ... > > > > > Yes, I am agree. We should wait until the new regressions are fixed. I > > am > > going to work on this patch more to fix the new regressions. Although the > > basic idea of the original problem solution probably will stay the same. > > I've retested series of three patches which are related to this PR: > > 19af25c0b3aa2a78b4d45d295359ec26cb9fc607 [PR98777] > 79c57603602c4493b6baa1d47ed451e8f5e9c0f3 [PR98722] > 34aa56af2547e1646c0f07b9b88b210ebdb2a9f5 [PR97969] > > on top of gcc-10 branch. > > Bootstrapped and regression tested on aarch64-linux-gnu machine and no issues. > Regression tested on x86_64 host (arm-eabi target) cross and no issues. > > OK for gcc-10 ?
I think this warrants waiting until at least the GCC 11 release. Richard.
