Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4

[Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>]

>I believe we should try to tackle these first (and deliver a
>sensibly improved GCC 3.2.3 after the forthcoming 3.2.2).

Agreed. I also think there should be a 3.2.3. 

What do you think of Gaby's proposal for bugfix releases? This idea is
really growing on me. All branches could continue to have releases as
long as there is movement in the code: if, after 3 months, there are no
changes, well: no release. It's so simple it's appealing.

It would also allow branches to die off on their own accord.

>Given how many ABI bugs CodeSourcery developers have already fixed
>(and the fact that I cannot remember Mark ever promising something
>he hasn't kept), I'm much more optimistic.

I'm not trying to be mean, sorry if that was the way it was interpreted.

>BTW, if you consider my finding of C ABI breakage for several, not so
>minor platforms today, apparently we could also use a C ABI testsuite.

... why I said that I see no difference between now and 2.7 in terms of
ABI testing.

>Well, why don't we send a "Call for support" to the gcc-announce list?
>Seriously.

You can sign my name on this email. Also cc gnu-announce, etc. I don't
even mind looking at a banner ad if it's a tinderbox-style effort, I
don't care, as long as email gets sent when there is a new regression. 

I won't mind overt commercialism on any of the infrastructure if it
means the necessary bits will actually get built. My opinion is my own,
of course, and I'm sure other developers will flame me for this.

You could do a separate one for the bugzilla effort as well, I'd supposed.

-benjamin