This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-09-04)
- From: "Michael Meissner" <michael dot meissner at amd dot com>
- To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "GCC" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:36:44 -0400
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.3.0 Status Report (2007-09-04)
- References: <46DE1713.email@example.com>
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 07:40:19PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> We are closing in on Stage 3, previously announced for September 10th.
> At this point, I'm not aware of any reason to delay that date. Are
> there any Stage 2 patches that people don't think will be submitted by
> that point?
> Are there Stage 1 or Stage 2 patches in need of review? I'll do my best
> to either (a) convince someone to review them, or (b) review them myself.
> Priority #
> -------- ---
> P1 43
> P2 118
> P3 4
> Total 165
> Obviously, that's rather more P1s than we'd like. As I mentioned in my
> previous status report, of particular concern is that we've got a lot of
> 4.3-only P1s. I'm sure many of those won't be too hard to fix, but we
> still need to go and fix them.
> I'm concerned about getting into a situation where we say "well, 4.2 has
> some bugs, but all of those are fixed in 4.3" and then realize that "oh,
> well, 4.3 has different bugs too, but those are all fixed in 4.4" and so
One patch that got dropped on the floor was my patch to remove the dependency
in the back ends of the way arguments are encoded, so that eventually for LTO
we can swtich to using a vector instead of linked list. As I recall, I had
fixed all backends except for the SPU, which I needed to investigate the
builtins. Now that SSE5 is winding down, I can go back to this patch. Given
it has been reviewed in this list, I will leave it to Mark to decide whether it
should go into 4.3 or 4.4.
Michael Meissner, AMD
90 Central Street, MS 83-29, Boxborough, MA, 01719, USA