2014-09-18 23:35 GMT+02:00 FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com>: > 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.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61387 comment #9. It doesn't apply anymore due current version of predicate was altered. Nevertheless I could easily update patch for current trunk version. > >> 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 Kai
