This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [jakub@redhat.com: Re: 2.95.4, sparc64 issues ?]
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 06:45:28PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > > Well, a justification of "Seems to allow libstdc++ to at least compile"
> > > doesn't make me confident that there has been much thought put into issues
> > > like, "will it actually work", or "could it be harmful on other targets".
> > > That makes it unacceptable for a stable branch.
> >
> > The `could it be harmful on other targets' part is OBVIOUS.
> > I mean, adding a test to handle some unhandled case RIGHT IN FRONT OF AN
> > abort() is a complete NO-BRAINER.
> >
> > As for the rest, yep, I think I want discussion about that.
> >
> > Specifically, if we need some other sparc64 patch, what is that sub-reg
> > patch. Where can I get a version that does more or less apply to 2.95.3 ?
>
> There is no SUBREG_BYTE patch which would apply to 2.95.x. Plus this patch
> touches almost all files in gcc, so backporting would not be easy.
Can someone explain to a dumb kernel hacker what magical problem it solves
that can't be worked around or kludged?
I don't think we plan to include sparc64 in a regular release until december
next year anyway because we want our code stable before we release it, but
it's pretty hard to make the code stable without being able to test it.
//art