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: 3.5 integration branch created

On Jan 13, 2004, at 17:14, Geoffrey Keating wrote:

I have created the gcc-3.5-integration-branch. It is similar in some ways to the 'basic-improvement' branch in the GCC 3.4 timeframe, but has some significant differences. The rules for the branch are:

1. This branch is for fully-tested, approved patches. The rules for committing to it are the same as the rules that apply during Stage 1 of GCC development. Experimental or incomplete work should not be put on the branch.

Well then you should not be accepting patches that usually go in for Stage1 then.

2. The intention is that immediately after GCC 3.4 branches, this branch will be merged back to mainline.

What happens if no one uses this as it having branches is a pain in the neck.
Also fixing bugs in any code even if the bug is in the new one is needed every where.

3. I will be making regular (probably weekly) merges from mainline onto this branch. I will be testing these merges with a powerpc-darwin native bootstrap. Anyone who commits anything to the branch that can't be fully tested with a powerpc-darwin native bootstrap should watch for the mail I send out saying the merge is done, and then run a test on their own platform and send the results to gcc-testresults.

Well if that is the case no one is going to use the branch as they should be more focused
towards 3.4. Also are you going to merges where the source has changed so much that you cannot do a merge within one week?

4. Anyone who commits to the branch is still responsible for maintaining the patch on the branch: fixing regressions that it causes, and sometimes updating or reintegrating it after merges. I expect that for most patches, this will be much less work than maintaining the patch on their own.

Well this just makes this branch to hard to use and no one is going to use it.

5. I may back a patch out of the branch if it (a) causes bootstrap failure or significant regressions on any platform and the author doesn't appear to be able to fix it quickly, or (b) don't appear to have followed Rule 1 or Rule 3.

What about compile time regressions also, are you going to test speed of the compiler too?

I'll update the web pages tomorrow...

Andrew Pinski

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