This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released

From: Matthias Klose <doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 20:17:33 +0200
Subject: Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released
References: <200509301316.j8UDGmQX024302@53v30g15.boeblingen.de.ibm.com><433D707F.2020903@codesourcery.com><20050930174725.GA14132@nevyn.them.org><433D7BCE.5010609@codesourcery.com>

Mark Mitchell writes:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> >>My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target
> >>milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on.  The Solaris problem
> >>is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it's
> >>a crisis meriting another release cycle.  The C++ change fixed a
> >>regression relative to 3.4.x, but not 4.0.x.  Andreas' change is only
> >>known to affect m68k.
> > 
> > ... but IIRC it cripples GCC for m68k; Debian turned up hundreds of
> > build failures because of this bug and it set builds back several
> > weeks.
> 
> Was this a regression from 4.0.0 or 4.0.1?

I don't know. We noticed when we did switch the compiler from 3.3 to
4.0.  IMO, we (Debian) can make sure that the patch is applied in the
compiler.

  Matthias

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released
  - From: Joel Sherrill <joel at OARcorp dot com>

References:
- Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released
  - From: Ulrich Weigand
- Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: GCC 4.0.2 Released
  - From: Mark Mitchell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]