Re: Moving towards GCC 3.1

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>]

Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:

> On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 08:53:21AM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Tajiman2 <tajiman2@dear.my.tj> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > It seems that RHL has released their own (g)cc 3.1 unilaterally
>> > within their RawHide packages.
>> > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/rawhide/SRPMS/SRPMS/gcc-3.1-0.10.src.rpm
>> 
>> Check the version number, it's still "3.1 20011127 (experimental)"
>> which marks a CVS release.  Putting out a CVS release - marked as one
>> - is no problem but quite usefull for testing of GCC and I appreciate
>> everybody's aktion for broader testing.
>> 
>> But it might be better to change the spec file to say e.g. "The gcc
>> package contains a CVS snapshot (development version) of the GNU
>> Compiler Collection version 3.1." so that nobody gets confused.
>> 
>> Looking at the different patches, there're some that should get
>> back into GCC (some are already in, the snapshot is a month old and
>> patches are newer).
>
> Going to be CVS updated soon (read as perhaps today). Most of the patches
> are going away, concerning gcc31-2.96-RH-tests.patch (which contains just
> many testcases for things which were broken in 2.96-RH but already fixed in
> 3.0), if there is interest in more testcases, I'll certainly post it for
> review.

If it was broken in 2.96-RH, it most probably was also broken in one
GCC snapshot and therefore I'm interested in those testcases - and I
hope others are also interested.

Thanks,
Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj