This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-02-03)
- From: Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mark at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 00:27:49 +0100
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.0 Status Report (2005-02-03)
- Organization: SUSE Labs
- References: <200502031949.j13JnNNp008162@sirius.codesourcery.com>
On Thursday 03 February 2005 20:49, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Therefore, we will use the same proposal-based procedure that we used
> (late) in the GCC 4.0 timeframe. If you have already completed, or
> are planning to complete, a substantial project that you would like to
> include in GCC 4.1, please send me the following information:
Can that information go the the mailing list instead?
IMVHO sending everything to you does not fit the "Open Development
Environment" that the SC has in its mission statement.
> I'll synthesize this information and make decisions about schedules
> for 4.1 once I have the proposals in hand.
Will you try to stick to the 6 month development plan that we have,
officially anyway, for GCC 4.1?
Or should the development plan beupdated to reflect your new way of
working (ie. the projects info collecting thing) and the actual
development schedule that we seem to be working on.
Between the releases GCC 3.3 and GCC 3.4 almost a year passed. The
time between 3.4 and GCC 4.0, as it looks now, will again be a year.
And the number of projects queued for 4.1 is probably already larger
than ever before.
With so much work queued for 4.1, I'm wondering if you should just
say "No" to a lot of work, or if we should just say that the cycle
of 6 months is not realistic, and update the development plan to
say the development cycle is a full year.
> But, I would like to get a sense of what projects are already out
> there, so that we can start bringing them into GCC 4.1. By staging
> the integration, we can take some time to stabilize after each major
That seems like a very good idea ;-)
Any idea what "some time" will be? Two weeks? A month?
> I will create the GCC 4.0 branch on February 24th, after posting
> information about initial GCC 4.1 development, based on the proposals
> I have received by the 17th. Based on current progress, my
> expectation is that the branch will be in very good shape by then.
> Therefore, my current expectation for a GCC 4.0 release date is April 15th.
Is that not too optimistic?
Note that the number of new regressions found each day is still
quite large. In fact, right now there are 109 regressions (40 of
them C++ regressions), so that is 6 up since your status report.
We've been around the 105, 110, for a couple of weeks now, so the
number of regressions is not going down very fast at all.
Dates of branching and releasing of earlier GCC versions:
- GCC 3.2 branched February 15 2002, was released May 15 2002
- GCC 3.3 branched December 14 2002, was released May 13 2003
- GCC 3.4 branched January 16 2004, was released April 18 2004
Given the net rate of regression fixing, and the magnitude of the
changes in 4.0, expecting a _shorter_ time between branching and
releasing seems a bit strange to me.
Perhaps branching at 100 regressions is just too early?
I hope your project information collection effort will result in
fewer regressions at the end of the next development cycle...