https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126906
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Wed, 2 Sep 2026, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126906 > > --- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #7) > > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > > > (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4) > > > BTW, neither of these commits have tests associated with them. How about we > > retroactively distill tests for them, commit them independently, so whatever > > fix we come up with does not regress those? > > For example, like this. > > I’ve gone back in time and made testcases for the commits that fail without > the > original patches and pass with them. They are reduced from the original > preprocessed sources, and also contain a further reduced minimal testcase. > > I have added Assisted-by tags to both patches, as all the work was done by > AI. > Per our policy, tests are fair game, so I assume I can contribute as is? I > would adjust the commit message of course, as that was entirely generated. > > Would something like this be appropriate? Sure. Please post them to gcc-patches (ISTR I did not have small enough testcases that I thought were "stable" enough to work, jump-threading testcases tend to be quite fragile)
