This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.3 target date?
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- To: "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: 'Gerald Pfeifer ' <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, 'Andreas Jaeger ' <aj at suse dot de>, 'Paolo Carlini ' <pcarlini at unitus dot it>, 'David Rasmussen ' <pinkfloydhomer at yahoo dot com>, "'gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:43:57 -0600
- Subject: Re: 3.3 target date?
- Organization: OAR Corporation
- References: <4195D82C2DB1D211B9910008C7C9B06F01F3730A@lr0nt3.lr.tudelft.nl>
"S. Bosscher" wrote:
>
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > > Our testing at SuSE showed that 3.3 is in a pretty good shape.
> >
> > That's interesting, because we still have 77 regressions in 3.3 listed
> > in GNATS:
> ---- 8< ----
> > And some 26 regressions in 3.2 (some of which might also apply to 3.3);
> > plus a significant compile-time performance problem.
>
> Fortunately all of those 26 are either fixed for 3.3 or included in those 77
> open PRs you mentioned.
PR9255 is a regression from 3.2 which prevents m68k targets from
compiling.
Overnight, i386-rtems, sh-rtems, and sh-rtemself wouldn't complete a
build
on the 3.3 branch. I have updated my tree and am going to see if these
failures were fixed overnight and are repeatable on i386-elf, sh-coff,
and
sh-elf respectively.
> Greetz
> Steven
--joel sherrill