Well, it would just mean you finally realized that the developers can't test everything,

I've realized that for years, and I did even write it in this topic: "[...] testing (which is not even a metric of correctness, as you know)" ( ./16 ):
* exhaustive testing is impossible for practical matters, except in VERY trivial programs.
* testing is only a way to prove that a number of expected good things work as they should, and a number of known bad things are rejected in a way or another.

we need to rely on users for most of the testing.

It's a fact - but it does not mean that we have to follow the TIGCC ""lead"" on below-bare-minimum testing
You admitted you tested it on a handful of programs (Backgammon and a couple others, IIRC). That sample is so small (and therefore outside of a quality-minded approach) that you didn't even notice the size regressions that were later reported by multiple persons besides me...
If you had an automated test suite of a couple dozen programs of different types, you'd much more easily get an idea of the strengths and weaknesses of a new GCC version. Making such an automated test suite is no problem, because "disk space is cheap", right ?
(and in case a new GCC version requires changes on the program side, you can even ask the original developer - if still active - to do the work for you, after providing him a beta version of the new compiler)

If on the other hand you sit on a bug for years like on the TICT Explorer crash without HW3Patch (despite the fix being trivial and having been sent to you in a timely manner), then it does matter.

Oh, a rehash of http://tichessteamhq.yuku.com/topic/1360?page=3 ...
As I wrote there, this particular bug you're always talking about was fixed one of the days following your report (which contained an explanation of the bug and a fix)
(Unlike most other bugs in TICT-Explorer 1.40 Beta, this particular fault of the crash protection could have been caught by a small automated test suite that just launches TICT-Explorer, or a program launched by it, under all meaningful configurations: HW1 with whatever AMS, HW2 w/ AMS 2.xx w/o HW2/3Patch, HW2 w/ AMS 2.xx w/ HW2/3Patch, HW3 w/ AMS 3.xx w/o HW3Patch, HW3 AMS 3.xx w/ HW3Patch.)

I know, I never uploaded a bugfixed version of TICT-Explorer, and you know why:

Oh, and a bug doesn't matter if nobody encounters it

You're defeating your own argument here...
As I wrote there, TICT-Explorer 1.40 Beta is in that situation, for two reasons:
* it is distributed only through a single message board topic (AFAIK), and this topic is only mentioned on, not linked from the main page of the TICT website (i.e. it's harder for search engines to find it);
* most of all, since HW3Patch is compulsory for a number of programs on 89T, many 89T calculators already have it. So the users of such calculators who know about that obscure TICT-Explorer version wouldn't even notice the problem (as I didn't).

Since the 2005 beta tests, I don't remember anyone writing me about TICT-Explorer 1.40 Beta... Either nobody tried to report the problem, or nobody knows about this version... or nobody was stuck by the problem.