http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135
--- Comment #26 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2013-03-06 12:14:03 UTC --- On Wed, 6 Mar 2013, steven at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55135 > > Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Known to work| |4.6.3 > Known to fail| |4.7.2, 4.8.0 > > --- Comment #24 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-03-06 > 12:09:26 UTC --- > (In reply to comment #23) > > PR47344 tracks the regression property of this bug. > > ?! This is also a regression from GCC 4.6 (commen #5), how in the world > does that qualify as an "old regression"? Ah, just because nobody has tried 4.5 doesn't say it isn't a regression in 4.6! (what is a regression in compile-time / memory-usage? technically I'd say if T2 > T1 or M2 > M1 it's a regression ... welcome to the world of an ever increasing number of open "regressions")
