> Seems rather marginal to worry about this. Surely this is letting > best be the enemy of good.
I agree. I was only noting the objections last time I suggested something like this. > And as for it being a bug, that's just a matter of clear > documentation. The problem was that you *can't* have clear documentation, because it often depends on how the optimizer mucks with the code. If was can accept docs that say "it mostly works like this, but sometimes it does other interesting things instead, and it might change from release to release", then the task becomes significantly easier.
