This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <sebor at roguewave dot com>, <gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 13 Dec 2002 22:31:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212131509010.3068-100000@gandalf.ticam.utexas.edu>
Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> writes:
| - given the really *large* number of open bug reports, I think the scarce
| bug fixing resources gcc has serve the community better in the long term
| if we let them focus on 3.3, rather than spending time backporting
| fixes. This way we might get 3.3 out earlier, which will certainly be
| better than any 3.2.2.
I'm not suggesting people spend their time backporting every
imaginable patch that happens to fix some bug on mainline. There are
bug-fix patches that don't need any particular action than running
patch + regtesting. I'm obvisouly talking of such patches.
I doubt we'll get 3.3 earlier just because we refuse to apply the same
patch (we do know passes regtesting) on mainline and branch.
Or we could just make it clear that 3.2 branch is dead and have people
not bothering about it. That way, we could expect people focus
mainly on 3.3: That would have the effect of saving any effort on 3.2
branch and make user clearly know that they should not expect anything
about 3.2.2. That way, we could perhaps have 3.3 earlier. It would
certainly be better than 3.2.2 since the latter would be non-existent.
-- Gaby