This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: 3.0.1 Freeze


| --On Monday, August 06, 2001 11:06:46 PM +0200 Gabriel Dos_Reis 
| <gdosreis@sophia.inria.fr> wrote:
| 
| >
| > | If you know of regressions from GCC 3.0 on the 3.0.1 branch, please
| > | file a PR *and* send me a personal email.  We will try very, very
| > | hard to fix any of those.
| >
| > We still need to handle the <limits> stuff in V3-land.  The idea of
| > reorganizing the build architecture at this point is making me a bit
| > nervous.
| 
| What are the issues that are making us inferior to GCC 3.0?  (Not,
| what do we wish was better than it is?)


Gerald, I'll need your assitance here -- please correct me if I'm
wrong.

Before we went down the "stagging hearders" road, Gerald could build the
GCC-3.0.x on solaris-2.8.  Now he can't because of the multilib issue
which is showing on more targets -- David already complained about
that for GCC-3.0 vs. AIX.

| What are the plans for dealing with them?  When do we expect these
| plans to be implemented?

The plan we agreed on was to have <limits> pregenerated.  That means
we need to 

  1) have port-maintainers generate that header for various targets
  2) make a surgery in the build architecture to suppress runninng
     mknumeric_limits in favor of copying the pre-generated header.
     (I don't know whether it was question to leave mknumeric_limits
      for causual targets for which we don't have the corresponding
      pregenerated-<header> -- I don't see much value for that)

| Conversely, what are the drawbacks to rolling back whatever patches
| caused this regression?

I don't think we really want to revert the "stagging header" patch...

-- Gaby


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]