On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > - Show quoted text - > On Mon, 9 Mar 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Joseph S. Myers >> <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: >> > The defaults are deliberate decisions >> > (and as such the adoption of those decisions cannot meaningfully be >> > considered a regression: it's not a bug but a feature), but are more >> > likely to change in the other direction from what you want. >> >> I wish the same "not a bug but a feature" measure would be applied to >> some of the "optimization" regressions (those in Bugzilla and those >> holding up big cleanups). > > I hope we judge optimizations based on whether they seem to improve (or > not make worse) important benchmarks on important targets rather than the > impossible standard of not making *any* code worse. (And cleanups > likewise on not making a range of benchmarks worse.) > > A particular case made worse may still be a regression, but it could quite > reasonably be a P4 or P5 regression depending on how much code is > affected.
It's pretty hard to qualify them as more or less important. So unless we get completely swamped in P2s like that I'd rather stay to the current policy. A more reasonable thing would be to downgrade optimization regressions once they shipped in a stable release, thus only make optimization regressions against the previous release series >P3. Richard. > -- > - Show quoted text - > Joseph S. Myers > jos...@codesourcery.com
