On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 01:24:44PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > > On 10/4/20 10:51 AM, H.J. Lu via Gcc-patches wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 5:57 PM Segher Boessenkool > >> <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 12:21:04PM -0700, sunil.k.pandey via Gcc-patches > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Linux/x86_64, > >>>> > >>>> c34db4b6f8a5d80367c709309f9b00cb32630054 is the first bad commit > >>>> commit c34db4b6f8a5d80367c709309f9b00cb32630054 > >>>> Author: Jan Hubicka <j...@suse.cz> > >>>> Date: Sat Oct 3 17:20:16 2020 +0200 > >>>> > >>>> Track access ranges in ipa-modref > >>>> > >>>> caused > >>> > >>> [ ... ] > >>> > >>> This isn't a patch. Wrong mailing list? > >> > >> I view this as a follow up of > >> > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-October/555314.html > >> > >> What do people think about this kind of followups? Is this appropriate > >> for this mailing list? > > > > A number of people routinely send emails similar to these to this > > list to point out regressions on their targets. I find both kinds > > of emails very useful and don't mind the additional traffic. > > +1 FWIW. I think it's great that we have this kind of automatic CI, and > this seems like a natural place to send the reports. Shovelling them into > bugzilla is likely to create more work rather than less, especially since > the fix turnaround should (hopefully) be short.
But send them as reply to the patch discussion then! Segher
