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: GCC 4.0.2 Released

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

>>My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target
>>milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on.  The Solaris problem
>>is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it's
>>a crisis meriting another release cycle.  The C++ change fixed a
>>regression relative to 3.4.x, but not 4.0.x.  Andreas' change is only
>>known to affect m68k.
> ... but IIRC it cripples GCC for m68k; Debian turned up hundreds of
> build failures because of this bug and it set builds back several
> weeks.

Was this a regression from 4.0.0 or 4.0.1?

> Personally, I'd do a 4.0.3 based on current bits.

The problem is that it's not just me banging on the release button
(which does itself take quite a lot of time, since there's all the
secondary upload and web-site work to do); it's also going to mean
freezing the release branch and doing a release candidate with current
changes, which will further distract from 4.1.

And, m68k is not a primary platform.

I think the right metric is: if we hadn't known about this bug before
4.0.2 would we be rushing out 4.0.3 right now?  I think in this case the
answer is clearly no.  I think the Solaris problem is the only one which
might merit that kind of recation.

Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304

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