Re: Is the gcc-3_3-branch creation still on target?

["David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:36:29AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:29:36AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:50:14AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > I assume you have filed bug reports marked them as regression.
> > 
> > Yes.  One finally got fixed in mainline, but I'm sure it wont get back
> > ported and I wonder if I could get permission to commit it if I back
> 
> Is that a regression? If it is, why can't it be back ported?

It is.  FreeBSD's bootloader had to loose some of it's strings as one
could not produce a binary as small as one could with GCC 2.95.
 

> > ported it.  There are 6 Athlon and related PR's that I know of.  A few
> > also apply to Pentium-4.
> 
> Are they also regression?

Probably not seen as such as GCC 2.95 did not support Athon and Pentium-4
optimizations.   But believe me, users are trying to use -march=athlon.