This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 2 x86-64 ABI bugs in gcc 3.3 and 3.4
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The cases Gerald pointed in the past are
> (1) regressions from very early versions of GCC.
> (2) they are present in both 3.3.x, 3.4.x (and sometime in
> (3) whether they are fixed in 3.3.x not, they are going to be
> regressions in 3.4.x. So the only question is where we
> put the regression point.
> (4) Given the above, and given the submission of patches that cure
> the problem, I believe it would be a mistake not to accept the
> patch in the name that it would introduce a regression.
> That won't be a regression, because the regression is _ealredy_
> present _before_ the problem got fixed in 3.3.x.
I believe this is the point where we have to agree to disagree on this
specific issue. In my opinion, having an oscillation (broken in 3.2,
fixed in 3.3, broken in 3.4, fixed on mainline) is somehow worse, because
it gives the user less certainty on how the compiler (mis)behaves.
I agree that, in a formal sense, the situation above will not add a
regression to 3.4, but still think we shouldn't backport a fix to 3.3,
but not to 3.4. Rather, we should be more aggressive on later, and
thus younger, release branches, than on older, more established ones.
Just my personal 4c, though!
Gerald Pfeifer (Jerry) email@example.com http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/