http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234
--- Comment #21 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2013-03-07 08:36:43 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49234 > > --- Comment #20 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-06 > 16:28:12 UTC --- > Oh, no worries Ian. I totally agree. I just wanted to put all this out > there, > since I'm unfortunately about to drop it. > > We should probably close this as a WONTFIX, or perhaps just drop this in > priority. A false positive is not the end of the world, so I don't see how > this merits a P2 for the release. > > Thoughts? I'd say we just give up here due to the fact that propagation in SSA / CFG cycles is imprecise and that it is thus not possible to avoid either false positives or false negatives. A P2 regression isn't so bad, we have tons of those.
