On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
Reverting the patch is just a (*&@#$ waste of time at this point.
Really, it's a waste of time/energy, much like this conversation.
This is a policy conversation which needs to be done as right now
from the looks of it, the testsuite is not som
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 14:26 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 12:34:42PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> What is the policy for testsuite regressions that have been
> >> there for over 48 hours and effect all targets and have n
On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 12:34:42PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
What is the policy for testsuite regressions that have been
there for over 48 hours and effect all targets and have not
been fixed yet?
In this case, wouldn't removing the patch just mo
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 12:34:42PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> What is the policy for testsuite regressions that have been
> there for over 48 hours and effect all targets and have not
> been fixed yet?
In this case, wouldn't removing the patch just move breakage from C++
to Ada? Or do I misund
> You're really not helping here. I'm dealing with things as
> quickly as I can and prioritizing the incorrect code issues
> over minor performance issues.
If you noticed I pointed out other testsuite regressions than
just yours. If I had posted the patch (not being a global write
maintainer) an
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 12:34 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I noticed that some testsuite regressions were not getting fixed.
> There are 3 failures in the gcc.dg/tree-ssa (PR 26344).
> And 5 in g++.dg (PR 26115 and PR 26114).
> All of these testsuite regressions have been there for almost
> three we
