On Tue, 23 Jun 2026, Xi Ruoyao wrote: > > > So fix the uninitialized operand use, i.e. (match_dup 0) should be > > > (match_dup 1). Also slightly alter the source of the set for the > > > memory > > > in sync_new_<optab>_12 to make it clear the value in the reg and in > > > the > > > memory should be same after the operation. > > > > I can't see this change posted/reviewed on gcc-patches, would you please > > point me at the original submission? Thank you. > > The concept of it has been discussed in https://gcc.gnu.org/PR125628.
Thanks, however this is not enough, patches still need to be posted to gcc-patches; cf. <https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#patches>. If a change has been approved off-list, then tag it with [COMMITTED] and use the discussion section to explain the details. However the change discussed in PR125628 isn't the same as (or trivially different, such as with a comment typo or formatting fix, from) one you have pushed, so you haven't actually obtained approval for your ultimate change. Especially as the commit description itself is subject to review as well. And last but not least the commit description was supposed to refer to PR125628, especially since you meant to backport it. With the situation as it stands nobody will be able to refer the PR from the change. I think this change has to be reverted on trunk/gcc-16, the final version of the fix properly posted with the commit description corrected, approval obtained, and only then the patch reapplied and backported. Maciej
