On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: >> Thanks for the review. Comments addressed and patch committed. The >> problem exists on gcc-4_9 too. Is it ok for gcc-4_9-branch? Will wait >> another day to commit it to gcc-4_9 if it is ok. > > Yes, if the patch from Uros was backported to 4.9, then this patch should > get backported as well. The failure mode if this bug gets triggered will > likely be hard to identify, so I'd rather not have to do that :-)
Thanks also from my side. I have to say to my defense, that my patch patched horrible bitrotten code that unnecessarily marked many operands as aliasing. The patches were extensively tested and I hope that this was the only fallout. Uros.
