This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Problem w/PIC and C++ exceptions in 2.95 on IA-32
- To: obrien at nuxi dot com
- Subject: Re: Problem w/PIC and C++ exceptions in 2.95 on IA-32
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 00 07:31:03 EST
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> FreeBSD and others actually track the gcc-2.95 release branch of
> CVS, so it matters to people even if we do not produce a formal release.
IMHO, the GCC Project may find that more and more people do this also.
To me, this seems a bad thing to do. If we don't actually produce a formal
release, that branch isn't going to get much testing, so I'd be very dubious
about people using it as the base for other releases.
We've found with FreeBSD people that want a stable, dependable version
of the software will trace the branch the last release came from in
order to pick up minor (or major) bug
But if those bugfixes haven't gotten much testing in the context of the
release branch, I would *not* call that a dependable version, especially
if the number of "bug fixes" that go in there gets high, as it seems is
being proposed. Who has tested that all those patches work well together?
Trusting your livelihood to the HEAD branch (of either FreeBSD or GCC)
isn't wise. :-)
That's perhaps true, but I think trusting your livelihood to a branch that
has received even *less* testing is even less wise.