> Perhaps it would be safer simply to revert that hunk of the original patch > unless/until (1) and (2) above are addressed?
Given that the original patch addresses “only” a missed-optimization (and causes ice-on-valid), it makes sense to me. FX
> Perhaps it would be safer simply to revert that hunk of the original patch > unless/until (1) and (2) above are addressed?
Given that the original patch addresses “only” a missed-optimization (and causes ice-on-valid), it makes sense to me. FX