This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: State of maturity for gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 2.96
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot co dot uk>,Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Subject: Re: State of maturity for gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 2.96
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 15:31:26 +0200
- Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>,Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010141432300.1279-100000@host117.cygnus>
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000, Toon Moene wrote:
> > Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > > Since 3.0 is still quite some time away, can 2.95.3 finally be
> > > > released? Some very major bugs have been fixed, but commits have been
> > > > very cautious to that branch. I'd almost imagine all that would be
> > > > needed is to do a checkout and tar it up.
> > >
> > > You'd want to fix at least one new bug introduced in reload...
> >
> > This would indicate that our process to update the release branch is not
> > correct.
>
> No, it indicates that not everything that looks like an obvious bug fix
> is necessarily correct.
>
> More specifically, this patch
> * reload1.c (reload_reg_free_for_value_p): Don't use a register
> that is in reload_reg_used.
> is incorrect; there's a correct solution for the bug in the current
> sources.
Could you be a bit more specific on what patch is the correct bugfix so I can
find it in the mainline and/or lists? I'll look into backporting it to the
gcc-2_95-branch then.
Franz.