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: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual

Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 25 January 2004 17:34, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The point I'm trying to make is that, sometime it is not really
> desirable to upgrade to the next major release -- for several reasons
> (ABI compatibility is a good one) -- just to get a bug fixed.

The point I was trying to make is that, often, it is not _possible_ to 
upgrade to the next major release, because no such release has been 
made yet.

I assume that bugzilla is supposed to reflect the state of the head 
branch.  Bugs reported for releases are only of interest if they can be 
confirmed in the head (or are regressions).  That might be a good 
policy for developing gcc, but it is not obvious at all from a user's 
perspective.  I like the idea of getting some appreciation in the form 
of remembering my report until there is a version of gcc released that 
has the bug fixed.

- -erik

- -- 
Erik Schnetter <>

My email is as private as my paper mail.  I therefore support encrypting
and signing email messages.  Get my PGP key from
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


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