This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- From: Mumit Khan <khan at NanoTech dot Wisc dot EDU>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:22:14 -0500 (CDT)
- cc: mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
On Wed, 3 May 2000, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> I cannot understand the notion of second-tier platforms, at all. What
> is the purpose of listing a platform there? "will be considerable
> interest", "serious problems ... will delay the release".
>
> I believe this is not how it actually works. Instead, Mike gave a good
> explanation of how it works: A platform is of considerable interest if
> there are people interested in it. By that measure, Cygwin is
> certainly of considerable interest.
I don't pretend to understand what a "second tier" platform is -- my goal
is to include one of the pe-coff targets, of which Cygwin is the possibly
the most likey candidate since gcc is the system compiler, in the list
of platforms. What that list is called is not that important to me. I will
however volunteer to do the testing and whatever other details are
required/needed.
> So I'd very much prefer the list of secondary platforms be removed;
> instead volunteers should be invited to report and fix problems they
> encounter on their platform.
One of the issues that we see over and over again (I know I get tons of
email on this) is that when users don't see a particular platform on the
"list", they assume that platform is not really supported by gcc, and
there is a resulting confusion. Note that status of gcc for Cygwin --
it's been the system compiler for years now, and it's still not
"supported", and that's a misconception I'd like to avoid for 3.0.
Regards,
Mumit