This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: State of maturity for gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 2.96
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Subject: Re: State of maturity for gcc 2.95.3 and gcc 2.96
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:03:41 +0200
- Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot co dot uk>,"David O'Brien" <obrien at FreeBSD dot org>,Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <Message from Bernd Schmidt <bernds@redhat.co.uk><Pine.LNX.4.21.0010131332210.1279-100000@host117.cygnus>
At 18:41 13.10.00, David Edelsohn wrote:
> >>>>> Bernd Schmidt writes:
>
> >> Since 3.0 is still quite some time away, can 2.95.3 finally be released?
> >> Some very major bugs have been fixed, but commits have been very cautious
> >> to that branch. I'd almost imagine all that would be needed is to do a
> >> checkout and tar it up.
>
>Bernd> You'd want to fix at least one new bug introduced in reload...
>
> Yes, I believe that I ran into this too while trying to backport
>some more 64-bit PowerPC bugfixes which should go into a gcc-2.95.3
>release. Without active testing, we cannot simply tar up the current
>branch and call it 2.95.3 without trading one set of bugs for another.
Is there a testcase for this one? I was backporting a bunch of fixes
(mainly loop stuff) from the mainline late June, and at this time it passed
all but one C execution test of the mainline testsuite. If there is really
interest to revive at least the gcc-2_95-branch (not necessarily talking
about a gcc-2.95.3 release here), I'll post my current bugfix backporting
work for review and approval. It is heavily tested on powerpc-linux-gnu and
behaves very well so far (which is more or less expected since I tried to
concentrate on backporting bugfixes).
Franz.