--- Comment #23 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 14:27
---
Subject: Bug 25514
Author: rsandifo
Date: Sat Jan 6 14:26:58 2007
New Revision: 120526
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=120526
Log:
gcc/
Backport:
2006-05-23 Richard Sandi
--- Comment #22 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-06 08:53
---
> Yup, I'm still ready to backport it if the consensus is that
> the patch is OK for 4.1. I see from later comments that you
> might be backporting it yourself, but the offer still stands
> if you haven't starte
--- Comment #21 from richard at nildram dot co dot uk 2007-01-06 08:42
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency failure
"ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Eric asked me to weigh in here. My only concern about a backport is Comment
>> #
--- Comment #20 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 19:03
---
> I know Richard's busy (he's getting ready to submit a big batch of
> changes), so if you feel like trying the backport you might want to give
> it a go. Otherwise, I'm sure Richard will get to it in the relati
--- Comment #19 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-05 18:37 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency
failure
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 18:33
> ---
>> Do you mean positiv
--- Comment #18 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 18:33
---
> Do you mean positive cascading effects, in that bugs go away, or
> negative, in that new bugs show up?
Positive cascading effects if the set of patch is backported to the branch.
> Do you think that backporti
--- Comment #17 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-01-05 18:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] internal consistency
failure
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Thanks Mark. It seems that a whole new class of internal consistency failures
> due to the mishandling of R
--- Comment #16 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 18:10
---
> Eric asked me to weigh in here. My only concern about a backport is Comment
> #9, which suggests that the patch didn't work. I'm assuming that since we're
> all talking about backporting it, that comment was
--- Comment #15 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-05 17:39
---
Eric asked me to weigh in here. My only concern about a backport is Comment
#9, which suggests that the patch didn't work. I'm assuming that since we're
all talking about backporting it, that comment was mistake
--- Comment #14 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-21 22:27
---
Not sure what to think about the current state of affairs of the 4.1 branch
and, consequently, about this PR. Anyone?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25514
--- Comment #13 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-16 13:08
---
Ping. :-)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25514
--- Comment #12 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 08:03
---
> I think Roger is OK in principle with a backport, but the
> questions are (a) whether we should keep your patch on
> mainline too and, if not, (b) whether we should revert
> it on the branches too. Roger, let
--- Comment #11 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:55
---
Ack that, thanks Eric. Roger and I did discuss this a bit
off-list, but I don't think we came to any conclusion.
(Tardiness on my part being the dominant problem, sorry.)
I think Roger is OK in principle with a
--- Comment #10 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 07:42
---
Richard, I'm on another problem related to REG_NOTEs in the combiner (PR 29329)
present on the 4.1 branch so I think it's time to make a definitive decision on
this PR.
I'd be in favor of backporting all your ch
14 matches
Mail list logo
