This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
3.3/3.4/head (was: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535)
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:57:44 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: 3.3/3.4/head (was: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535)
- References: <20040316003346.GA31411@twiddle.net> <m3hdwp5qas.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><Pine.BSF.4.58.0403160931560.90675@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><m3smg9qjc8.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403161257010.26679@wotan.suse.de><m3k71kvmef.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><0D61AF52-7761-11D8-95E0-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu>
[ gcc-patches -> gcc ]
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Why are we arguing about a patch which Mark is already said okay for
> 3.4.0?
> See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14535#c7> for the
> approval.
It's not this specific patch, it's a general issue: should we apply
fixes to release branch X without making sure they are also applied
to X+1?
Gerald