This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:31:57 +0100
Subject: Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
References: <240f01c3d7d9$246093d0$34b82997@bagio> <1073884876.3462.12.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <200401120934.37701.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:34:37AM +0100, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> All of this is just a result of our bug masters identifying things as
> regressions much sooner, and key-wording/targeting everything.  Another
> example is the 33 "wrong-code" bugs: Many of them were not wrong-code
> at all, and after reviewing them all (and fixing some), we only have
> 16 left now (including the -fwritable-string and global register ones;
> are we going to deprecate global registers for 3.4? It never worked
> for any 3.x release anyway).

Do you mean global register variables here?  Many important projects rely
heavily on it, including e.g. Linux kernel, glibc or qemu.

	Jakub

References:
- 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
  - From: Giovanni Bajo
- Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
  - From: Steven Bosscher

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