This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: [Proposed binutils PATCH] Re: Diagnosing an intricate C++ problem
- From: "David O'Brien" <obrien at NUXI dot com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 02:31:03 -0700
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Organization: The NUXI BSD group
- References: <200007250811.DAA35595@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> <Pine.BSF.email@example.com> <20000902113513.A1131@lucon.org>
- Reply-To: obrien at NUXI dot com
On Sat, Sep 02, 2000 at 11:35:13AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> FWIW, as far as I know, binutils 2.10 is too old and so many bugs
> have been fixed since then.
I really wonder how to get the FSF/GNU toolchain software development
efforts to follow the FreeBSD and OpenBSD development method of actually
merging fixes in the HEAD development branch back to the release branch
-- GASP! rather than letting the release branch stagnate to the point of
totally uselessness. [the GCC 2.95 branch is a fine example of this, and
the binutils_2.10_release branch only has 40KB of diff from release to
this moment (and this *includes* the diff header CVS puts for each diff].
-- David (obrien@NUXI.com)