On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 14:26 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Joe Buck wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 12:34:42PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> What is the policy for testsuite regressions that have been > >> there for over 48 hours and effect all targets and have not > >> been fixed yet? > > > > In this case, wouldn't removing the patch just move breakage from C++ > > to Ada? Or do I misunderstand? > > You are misunderstanding, there are a couple different sets of testsuite > regressions. One in gcc.dg/tree-ssa and one in g++.dg. Ada also has a > couple too. Reverting Jeff's patch will fix the gcc.dg/tree-ssa > regresions And note that revering the patch will introduce new minor missed-optimization regressions.
I've focused on the Ada regressions as they have caused compile-time hangs and incorrect code generation. I've worked on the tree-ssa missed optimizations anytime I haven't been working on an Ada regression. Reverting the patch is just a (*&@#$ waste of time at this point. Really, it's a waste of time/energy, much like this conversation. I'm working diligently to address the issues and I'm confident they will be resolved. Has it taken longer than I'd like. No doubt, but that's no surprise as the VRP improvements have uncovered at least a dozen distinct latent bugs. Please, let's focus on fixing the problems rather than reverting patches. If the tree-ssa.exp failures are bugging you that freaking much, then xfail them like I've suggested. They're just missed optimizations and I'm actively investigating a good fix rather than bandaid solutions. Jeff
