Re: GCC 3.0

["Tim Prince" <tprince at computer dot org>]

Some ambitious goals on non-regression were set for g77, but snapshot g77
has been so broken until recently that there wasn't any point in trying the
prescribed tests, nor is there any chance of them running as prescribed on
some of the interesting (but not fully supported) targets.  It could be that
people were waiting to see if anyone thought the thing had reached a stable
enough stage to start trying the regression tests on those "supported"
targets where they ought to be possible.  It could also be that enough of us
thought that g77 had reached a stage where we ought to give up on it being
supported as part of GCC.  Why, I don't even see gcc-2.95.2 being supported
as a standard part of linux distributions, so there seems quite a big
divergence between where GCC is and most of the g77 usage.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 11:37 AM
Subject: GCC 3.0


>
> I am becoming increasingly concerned about the release f GCC 3.0.
>
> Progress on some aspects of the GCC 3.0 release criteria (namely,
> turning on libstdc++ V3 and the conversion of the Java front-end to
> use the new C++ ABI) have shown little progress in quite some time.
> Those changes, together with libgcc.so (which, thanks to Richard, we
> are making some progress on) are critical -- and to my knowledge the
> only major pieces of functionality missing.
>
> It is imperative that these items be completed in the near future.
>
> To some extent, this is my fault.  I have tried to avoid riding
> everybody too hard, and I have also not put as much time into GCC
> (coding these bits myself) as I had hoped.  As mentioned before, GCC
> 3.0 is one of my two primary tasks for the next several months; I am
> not scheduled on any other projects.  I hope to redeem myself,
> plugging some holes soon.
>
> On the other hand, I'm disappointed in the follow through from
> maintainers for these parts of the toolchain.  The information about
> what needs doing hasn't changed in several months, and there's been
> little progress.  I understand that everyone has been busy, but the
> failure of this stuff to get done puts me in a difficult position.
>
> Please attempt to focus on these critical issues in the short term.
>
> If you are a volunteer looking for something to do, your contributions
> in these areas will be more valuable than other miscellaneous
> improvements.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com