On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 05:28:14PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >On May 5, 2006, at 7:26 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> >
> >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
> >>
> >> Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't
On 5/5/06, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 5, 2006, at 7:26 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
>
> Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't regtested before being
> applied?
No, it was regression tested, just not on x86-li
On May 5, 2006, at 7:26 AM, François-Xavier Coudert wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't regtested before being
applied?
No, it was regression tested, just not on x86-linux-gnu like most
people is
doing.
-- Pinski
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
Humpf. Does that mean that the patch wasn't regtested before being applied?
FX
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 01:05:55PM +0200, Fran?ois-Xavier Coudert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The following regression appeared between 20060504 and 20060505 on
> i686-linux. It is filed as PR 27443,and appears to be a consequence of
> a new optimization pass introduced by revision 113518.
>
It is
htt
