http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47344
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-06 12:11:38 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > All these regressions clutter the list of important regressions. > > And why would all of these not be important? > Hiding a problem is not solving the problem. > > And it always was policy that a regression should be marked as such. If > it is not important enough, you can set its priority to P4 or P5, but we > should never remove the regression marker. > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00550.html Well, the issue with these kind of testcases / bugs is that we cannot easily mark them as dups of each other because nobody separates the issues the testcases show into separate bugreports (which could be individually marked as regression). So the bugs tend to stay open forever, with much confusion as to what issue (still) exists or has popped up again or new. Tracking the testcases so we see when they regress again is important (and gcc.opensuse.org/c++bench/random is just a lame attempt, because C++ issues keep breaking testcases and because the machine has not enough memory to keep up with the task - and the scripting is lame, too ;)) I realize this meta-bug is a bad attempt at making the important regression numbers look better ;)
