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] |
Seongbae Park wrote: > On 5/1/07, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 01 May 2007 14:28:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: >> > I agree that it would be appropriate to backport the patch to gcc 4.2. >> >> Lets first get the patch which fixes the ICE regression that this >> patch causes approved :). >> >> Which can be found at: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01746.html
This patch is OK for mainline.
As for backporting to 4.2, this isn't a regression, so the default answer would be "no". I'm unconvinced that this is a sufficiently serious problem to merit violating that policy; after all, we're only talking about a spurious warning. (However, the other bug here is that we don't have a warning option for this, so users can't use -Wno-<something> to turn this off.)
In any case, we're not going to do this for 4.2.0. As per the policy I posted recently on PRs, please find a C++ maintainer who wants to argue for backporting this and ask them to mark the PR as P3 with an argument as to why this is important to backport.
Thanks,
My guess is that this will be big enough nuisance to be worth backporting, but I agree that this isn't a regression - I won't bother other c++ maintainers for this. -- #pragma ident "Seongbae Park, compiler, http://seongbae.blogspot.com"
Attachment:
pr31663.diff.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |