https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78468
--- Comment #36 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Don't be silly. I've fixed all regresseions that have shown up, except the > one on Sparc because you refused to accept changes to the Sparc backend. Well, this is somewhat contradictory with your previous comment, especially the "There was plenty of time to identify and fix affected backends" part, so you seem to have again forgotten that we have ~50 back-ends in the compiler and that we can just wait for regressions to show up when we know that a change is very controversial as this one (it broke 2 major ones). The proper thing to do was to audit all the back-ends and identify the possibly other broken ones, and then contact the maintainers or post a heads-up on the gcc@ list if there were some. As far as I can see you didn't do any of this, so there was no other sensible thing to do that cleaning up the mess by reverting the controversial change.
