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: GCC-4.0.4 release status


On 1/25/07, Volker Reichelt <reichelt@igpm.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
Hi,

> | Well, there's another serious (wrong-code) bug which should be fixed
IMHO:
> |
> | PR c++/29106 is a C++ front-end issue.
> | It has a one-line fix (plus comment) on the 4.1 branch.
> | Well, actually one should also backport the fix for PR c++/28284 then,
> | which is a two-liner.

> I was primarily looking at the PRs that marked in the bugzilla
> database blocker or critical.  As there were over 256 PRs open, and
> the idea is to get GCC-4.0.4 out of the door as soon as possible, I'm
> not trying to fix everything; just those that are critical or
> blockers.  This is based on the fact that most distros have moved to
> GCC-4.1.x or higher.  GCC-4.0.x has been since GCC-4.0.0 to contain
> major shortcomings.

Well, the severity status of the bugs is not very well maintained.
Mark e.g. only sets the prioriy field (P1 - P5) of the bugs.
And PR 29106 bug is one of the 37 P1 bugs. And one from three
wrong-code P1 bugs. So this is not like every simple error-recovery
problem.

In addition this is a regression from GCC 4.0.2, i.e. a regression
on the 4.0 branch. Which makes this bug even worse, IMHO.
(This infromation seems to be missing in bugzilla, though.)

Considering how much dispute there is on the mailing list about how
to handle undefined behaviour correctly ;-), it bothers me more that
we ignore one-lines fixes for wrong-code bugs.

I think regressions on the branch are worth a fix. Though I agree that the primary goal should be to get rid of the 4.0 branch ;)

Richard.


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