This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Does gcc 3.2 branch bootstrap on RedHat 7.3?
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU> writes:
> On 05-Oct-2002, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> wrote:
>> Andreas Tobler <toa@pop.agri.ch> writes:
>>
>> > H. J. Lu wrote:
>> >
>> >>>>/export/build/gnu/gcc-3.2/build-i686-linux/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/stl_rope.h:609: no
>> >>>> type named `allocator_type' in `struct
>> >>>> __gnu_cxx::_Rope_rep_base<char, std::allocator<char> >'
>> > []
>> >> Mark, Andreas has identified your patch breaks both mainline and 3.2:
>> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-10/msg00231.html
>> >> Shouldn't we revert it at least on the 3.2 branch?
>> >
>> > What is about the trunk? Do we wait?
>>
>> According to our development rules, we wait 48 hours and then even
>> need some approval of two other developers:
>>
>> If a patch is committed which introduces a regression [1], on any
>> target which the Steering Committee considers to be important [2],
>> and the problem is reported to the original poster, and 48 hours
>> pass without either the original poster or any other party
>> indicating that a fix will be forthcoming in the very near future,
>> and two people with write privileges to the affected area of the
>> compiler determine that the best course of action is to revert the
>> patch, then they may revert the patch.
>>
>> But I do expect that Mark will be back from vacation on the 8th and
>> fix it immediatly. The question is whether we wait so long or not.
>
> I think it would be best to revert it now.
> Mark can easily reapply it once it is fixed.
Yes, he can. But look at the rules above. So, unless two developer
with write privileges to this area approve of this, our rules do not
allow such reversal. And only 24 hours have passed since my email
pointing out the patch.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj