Dear Kai, > it isn't true that I didn't replied to Iant. I did this on IRC.
Good. I simply did not see any recent comment from you on the list, or bugzilla. > As > this code-path isn't prominent mark being Darwin-code - and please > don't take me wrong, but it seems to be until now the only target > reporting this issues Sure, no problem. There are many code-paths in the compiler that are only taken on a subset of targets, so noone is implying that you should have tested it on all targets before committing. > - and therefore I strongly see the issue to be > solved for Darwin. I don't see that this changes needs an additional > testcase demonstration on a already regression-tested target that it > doesn't break … I’m afraid I don’t understand what you mean by that. I was only saying that if this part of the patch is only exercised on darwin, and it fails there, we might want to change it. > Nevertheless I provided in the past already a patch which fixes the > issue well. Could you give a link to the patch? I’m not finding it. Has it been tested on darwin? If not, I can do it. > I don't agree to revert that patch. Please provide a testcase, why my > suggested fix isn't suitable. If there is a patch submitted that fixes the issue, of course reversion is bad. I was unaware of that. FX