"I tested compiling SATD() with gcc-4.8.2 and gcc-5.2.0 with -O3, and they do not "optimize" SATD() into an infinite loop."
and from this you assume it was specifically changed (much like you assume a lot of bad faith throughout), instead of "just falling by the wayside as the result of some other change", which is infinitely more likely.
I have no desire to know what patch did it, actually, i'm pointing out you are, pretty much everywhere, going off half-cocked with assumptions and accusations.
"The gcc maintainer who justified that change to me is Andrew Haley. He may not be working on SCEV, whatever that is, but, unlike you, he admits to this change that has provably happened."
Andrew pretty much has only ever worked on the java front end, and that's what he maintains. SCEV is the thing that changed here.
I'm not sure why Andrew would have ever said anything about SPEC (since it's not java ;P), but i actually at this point suspect more bad faith on your part, given what you've said so far.
and from this you assume it was specifically changed (much like you assume a lot of bad faith throughout), instead of "just falling by the wayside as the result of some other change", which is infinitely more likely.
I have no desire to know what patch did it, actually, i'm pointing out you are, pretty much everywhere, going off half-cocked with assumptions and accusations.
"The gcc maintainer who justified that change to me is Andrew Haley. He may not be working on SCEV, whatever that is, but, unlike you, he admits to this change that has provably happened."
Andrew pretty much has only ever worked on the java front end, and that's what he maintains. SCEV is the thing that changed here.
I'm not sure why Andrew would have ever said anything about SPEC (since it's not java ;P), but i actually at this point suspect more bad faith on your part, given what you've said so far.