On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 12:48:42PM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 4/19/23 11:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 11:20:09AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > When I was backporting the earlier 108099 patch I finally saw your > > > comments on > > > the PR about the meaning of this pattern with the patch being wrong (and a > > > regression from 11). This fixes that regression; fixing the broader > > > issues can > > > wait. > > > > > > Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, OK for 13.1 or wait for 13.2? > > > > I'd wait for 13.2. We've been burned with trying to rush stuff out at the > > last minute once this week already ;) > > Fair, though this is much more straightforward than that issue. > > I might revert the previous patch in that case, though; a wrong-code > regression seems worse than an ICE.
It is wrong code on invalid source that we happen to tollerate, we don't even know if it is from some real-world code or just some bad reduction. And I believe in that area other cases just do something that user wouldn't expect, so I wouldn't worry much about this particular PR for 13.1. Jakub