This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Patch queue and reviewing (Was Re: Generator programs can only be built with optimization enabled?)
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:16:38 +0200
- Subject: Re: Patch queue and reviewing (Was Re: Generator programs can only be built with optimization enabled?)
- References: <448C7B05.8030109@codesourcery.com> <96F5A03B-F997-4859-BD28-F71727B6313B@apple.com> <20060614185149.GF21013@synopsys.com>
> But GCC is a mature compiler, it's stable, and while it has bugs and could
> be better, I'm not sure I *want* GCC to start changing much more rapidly
> than it changes today. Bugs will be fixed, yes. New features will be
> introduced, yes. But will the quality level be maintained?
You can't put new features and bug fixes in the same basket. They can even be
viewed as steering the compiler in opposite directions quality-wise. If you
don't want to increase the patches-per-day ratio, the only solution is to
prioritize bug fixes over new features. For example we could introduce
secondary maintainers with approval rights for bug fixes only or something
along these lines.
--
Eric Botcazou