This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: More cpp.texi updates
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: More cpp.texi updates
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 19:04:17 +0100 (BST)
- cc: Zack Weinberg <zackw at Stanford dot EDU>, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Perhaps I have a different view of snapshots than others. I would like
> them to be essentially pre-releases (but with none of the quality control
> that normally implies, so probably a better term is needed). That
The lack of quality control means that at present there is a significant
probability that a random snapshot (as a sample of the CVS tree at a
random time) doesn't build on some platforms. If the snapshot script were
to build GCC, then those weeks would fail to have snapshots at all (though
they might well build on other platforms).
> I'm not particulary concerned about the size of the diffs; the way to
> get minimal bandwidth is probably `cvs update' when a new snapshot
> comes out, especially since that contains very few generated files,
> by hypothesis.
I see the snapshot diffs as being a way of reading and reviewing all
changes to GCC over a week - in which case, the smaller the better.
(Though a gcc-cvs-patches list, as I suggested in other/1634, might be
better for this purpose.)
Joseph S. Myers