Re: Branching for GCC 3.0

[Robert Lipe <robertlipe at usa dot net>]

Jeffrey A Law wrote:
>   In message <20010107145939R.mitchell@codesourcery.com>you write:
>   > It's the usual volunteer-driven thing; there's been eons of time to
>   > get 64-bit Ultrasparc into GCC, and if it hasn't happenned yet, that
>   > can only indicate that it is either hard, or that nobody has been
>   > terribly motivated.
> That is the core of the problem.  The subreg patch is big and touches
> just about every file that deals with RTL if I understand correctly.

Additionally, in fairness to Mark's sanity, the GCC3 criteria were
published for comment some time ago.  Neither the words "ultra" or
"v9" appear in it.  At the last moment, suggesting the inclusion of
additional work that hasn't seen as much testing isn't likely to be well
received.

Signed,
Having Flashbacks To Marketing Changing Requirements at the End of Code Freeze.