On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:19 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote: > From: Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 11:55:56 -0700 > >> Steven is correct in saying that there is a tendency to move on and >> never address GCC bugs. However, there is also a counter-vailing >> tendency to fix GCC bugs. Anyhow I'm certainly not saying that in all >> cases it's OK to accept a merge with regressions; I'm saying that in >> this specific case it is OK. > > I think it's more important in this case to recognize Steven's real > point, which is that for an identical situation (IRA), and with an > identical patch author, we had similar bugs. They were promised to be > worked on, and yet some of those regressions are still very much with > us.
My point is not to single out Vlad here! I don't think this patch author is any worse or better than the next one. There are other examples enough, e.g. VRP is from other contributors and it has had a few horrible pieces of code from the start that just don't get addressed, or var-tracking for which cleaning up a few serious compile time problems will be a Big Job for stage3. It's the general pattern that worries me. Ciao! Steven
