Re: [rfa/3.0.x] NetBSD/PPC support

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at mac dot com>]

> Andrew> You mean 3.0.x is a single branch so there is no 3.0.3 branch that
> Andrew> I could commit to now.
> 
> 	Yes, there only is a gcc-3.0 branch, not gcc-3.0.1, gcc-3.0.2,
> gcc-3.0.3, etc.  I interpreted your original message as submitting your
> code for gcc-3.0.3, so why does this matter?  Why are you now proposing to
> create a kludge for gcc-3.0.2 when you previously implied gcc-3.0.3?

I actually thought 3.0.2 was out the door (I guess I got my dates 
wrong).  When I learnt that it hadn't I figured I might as well at least 
try to get it into that.  I agree, as the patch stands, it is probably 
too risky for 3.0.2.

> 	If you want the change in gcc-3.0.2, I am not going to object
> strenuously, but you should have submitted this change during the previous
> two and a half months.  I don't have a lot of sympathy for an extremely
> localized, hacked variant just to get the change in gcc-3.0.2.  There is
> no technical reason for a special variant just for gcc-3.0.2.

Lets just say that there was some confusion and I only learnt that GCC 
was accepting new targets for the 3.0.x branch a month ago.  If I'd 
known this earlier, I would have submitted a patch sooner.  Adding to 
this, the last month had a very unexpected hurdle.

> 	You will need to ask Mark Mitchell, the GCC Release Manager, for
> permission to make this borderline intrusive change in the branch so late
> in the gcc-3.0.2 release cycle.  I prefer that you either convince Mark to
> accept the current version of the change into gcc-3.0.2 or wait until
> gcc-3.0.3 instead of installing a kludge.  This isn't a case where we
> could not accept the complete change into the release branch, this simply
> is a case of timing and deadlines.

I'm simply asking the question.

As a sanity check, is there really going to be a 3.0.3?

Andrew