On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 03:34:25PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> well, the question is what counts as regression. In any case, I have now
> committed that patch as r278689.
>
Regression is fairly easy to define. Standard conforming code
that compiled and executed correctly (for some
Hi Steve,
well, the question is what counts as regression. In any case, I have now
committed that patch as r278689.
Cheers,
Tobias
Just my $0.02.
Backporting a patch from trunk that fixes a regression is
always encouraged. It is up to the person doing the backport
to determine the level of effort. If it exceeds some threshold
the person can choose to not backport.
For patches that fix a bug, which is not a regresssion,
Hi all,
I was asked to backport this fix to the GCC 9 branch – given that
-fcheck=bounds is a common option and it fails with code like
genecode.org. Given that ICEs with -fcheck are a regression and that the
patch is not that invasive, I am inclined to accept it.
Comments/(dis)approvals?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:17:49PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Checking produces extra code (unsurprisingly); this code needs to end up
> in the program…
>
> Bootstrapped on x86-64_gnu-linux. OK for the trunk?
>
OK.
--
Steve
Checking produces extra code (unsurprisingly); this code needs to end up
in the program…
Bootstrapped on x86-64_gnu-linux. OK for the trunk?
Tobias
diff --git a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c b/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
index 965ab7786a1..65238ff623d 100644
--- a/gcc/fortran/trans-expr.c
+++
