This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Revised release criteria for GCC 4.0
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:23:42 -0800
- Subject: Re: Revised release criteria for GCC 4.0
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <41BCF9EB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 02:09, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Working with the SC, I have prepared revised release criteria for GCC
4.0, which are available here:
These revisions include changes to the set of primary and secondary
platforms to more accurately reflect the platforms currently thought to
be important, and also include more realistic goals for validation.
Comments are welcome, and we might make changes if there is sufficient
momentum in a particular direction. However, I would suggest that you
not spend too much energy picking nits; our release criteria are
guidelines, not absolutes.
How come mips-elf is a primary platform, but arm-elf is only secondary?
Historical accident, as much as anything.
There was a MIPS platform before (IRIX). The SC seemed to agree that
IRIX was no longer a major focus, but wanted to keep a MIPS platform.
I certainly have no objection to adding arm-none-elf to the primary
platform lists; it seems like a good idea to me. Would you like to ask
the SC directly, or would you prefer that I do it?