This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [v3] debug macro unifcation

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Benjamin Kosnik <benjamin dot kosnik at gmail dot com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:48:06 -0700
Subject: Re: [v3] debug macro unifcation
References: <20060908004940.a5f7ac74.bkoz@redhat.com> <1157678405.9676.3.camel@celery.andrew.com> <20060908101330.dc3b9917.benjamin.kosnik@gmail.com>

Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

Is there a reason why you are applying this during regression only
fixes?  We have been release branch rules for about a month or longer
now and libstdc++ still is getting changes which seems a little big for
a release branch.

There is no release branch.

pb_ds is new code, and I found errors in
the debug parts of it. I don't want to have a release of new code
that has known API issues, and then have to support it. The patch was
larger than I expected but mostly mechanical, and to extensions which
have historically been allowed more leeway.

For the record, I am not uncomfortable with these changes. Maintainers need and deserve the flexibility to make their own calls on close cases. Of course, as we move closer to the release, I do expect all maintainers to hew more and more strictly to the regression-only policy.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

References:
- [v3] debug macro unifcation
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: [v3] debug macro unifcation
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: [v3] debug macro unifcation
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik

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