This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Regressions in 3.2
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- Cc: Brad Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>, "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>, mark at codesourcery dot com, pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 08:47:46 -0600
- Subject: Re: Regressions in 3.2
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20020515154255.A2579@disaster.basement.lan>, Phil Edwards writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:16:40AM -0500, Brad Lucier wrote:
> > From my point of view, part of the problem was that there were so many
> > problems with the 3.1 sparc-solaris port that it wouldn't even bootstrap 6
> > before the proposed release date (this was not an isolated experience in
> > the months and weeks leading up to the release) and it took what appeared
> > an outsider to be an enormous (and impressive) effort to clean up 3.1 to g
> > it into reasonable shape for release.
> > Now, unfortunately, a lot of that effort may have to be repeated on the
> > mainline.
> For the port-specific things, would it be feasible to just copy the 3.1
> file back on top of the mainline files as a starting point? I've never
> worked hard on a port, so it's quite possible I'm talking out of my ass
> here, but it seems like the 3.1 sparc code is now in much better shape
> than what's on the mainline.
That's usually a bad idea -- for example, you'd stomp on the DFA
This is going to involve careful analysis of patches, both to the
backend and the front-end to identify and fix the regressions.