This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Plans for 3.0.4 ?
- From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad at ltc dot com>
- To: "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 12:02:08 -0500
- Subject: Re: Plans for 3.0.4 ?
- References: <72520000.1011199862@warlock.codesourcery.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: "Bradley D. LaRonde" <brad@ltc.com>; <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: Plans for 3.0.4 ?
> --On Wednesday, January 16, 2002 11:08:07 AM -0500 "Bradley D. LaRonde"
> <brad@ltc.com> wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Mitchell" <mark@codesourcery.com>
> > To: <rboehne@ricardo-us.com>; <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 2:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: Plans for 3.0.4 ?
> >
> >
> >> > What (if any) are the plans for a 3.0.4 release of gcc?
> >>
> >> I've been deliberately noncommittal, but it's time to commit, I guess.
> >>
> >> So, this is a poll: how many people feel that a 3.0.4 release
> >> would be valuable?
> >
> > I believe that the mips arch really needs a 3.0.4 release to get the
> > -mtune stuff right (which became broken in 3.0.3).
>
> OK, there's clearly interest.
>
> When you (and everyone else) say "There needs to be a release so that
> my platform works" is it already the case that your platform works
> with the branch sources, or are you really saying "First, someone should
> fix my platform and then there should be a release with the fix?"
In my case, 3.0.2 worked fine (for me, ymmv), 3.0.3 introduced the -mtune
brokenness, and the 3.0 branch remains broken to the best of my knowledge.
I flagged the problem the arch maintainer Eric Christopher. Maybe I should
file a formal bug report?
Regards,
Brad