This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Branching for GCC 3.0
At 17:16 2001-01-08, Robert Lipe wrote:
>Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > In message <20010107145939R.firstname.lastname@example.org>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
Well, actually I would think the subreg-byte-branch got more real world
testing on alpha/x86/sparc than the current mainline, cause it's part of
the RedHat7 gcc-2.96 AFAIK.
Also if the merge with the mainline is postponed after 3.0 is branched off,
that will make backporting fixes to the gcc-3_0-branch much more difficult.
So I believe we should at least seriously think about a possible inclusion
What I would like to see is something like:
- bring the subreg-byte-branch uptodate with the mainline
- encourage developers to commit all changes to both mainline and branch
for a few days
- analyze any differences in the testresults
This should give us a better picture if merging the subreg-byte-branch
makes sense for 3.0.