http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53676
--- Comment #15 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-22 09:17:10 UTC --- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > No, it's only the commit referenced in this PR. No optimization regressions > > warrant a backport as they always come with the risk of regressing something > > worse than performance. Trivial restoring of old behavior might be worth > > backporting but the patch introduces a completely new non-trivial transform > > into a core analysis engine that is shared among many passes. > > FWIW, it seems to me that small patches, even non-trivial ones, should be > candidates for back-porting after they've been on the trunk or on a later > release branch for a reasonable period of time. E.g. after 3 months on the GCC > 4.8 trunk and with no resulting bugs reported, this patch should be considered > for back-porting IMHO. Testing coverage during stage1 isn't very good IMHO, so we should wait at least until we enter stage3. But again, patch size isn't a good metric, it is the coverage that counts - for this patch, changing SCEV analysis in a non-trivial way is very intrusive.
