This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is the gcc-3_3-branch creation still on target?

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:46:00AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:36:29AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:29:36AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:50:14AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > > I assume you have filed bug reports marked them as regression.
> > > 
> > > Yes.  One finally got fixed in mainline, but I'm sure it wont get back
> > > ported and I wonder if I could get permission to commit it if I back
> > 
> > Is that a regression? If it is, why can't it be back ported?
> It is.  FreeBSD's bootloader had to loose some of it's strings as one
> could not produce a binary as small as one could with GCC 2.95.

I guess no one else used it. It may be too bad for FreeBSD. I hope it
won't happen again since you are testing gcc before it is branched. I
tend to agree that back port it to 3.2 is not a very good idea in this
case. But you can certainly do a private port for FreeBSD.

> > > ported it.  There are 6 Athlon and related PR's that I know of.  A few
> > > also apply to Pentium-4.
> > 
> > Are they also regression?
> Probably not seen as such as GCC 2.95 did not support Athon and Pentium-4
> optimizations.   But believe me, users are trying to use -march=athlon.

As long as they are fixed in gcc 3.3, I am happy.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]