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: v8.S dwarf2 eh frame issues again :(

From: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
To: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at
Cc: christian at j-son dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jakub at redhat dot com, jsturm at one-point dot com
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: v8.S dwarf2 eh frame issues again :(
References: <20020421.023201.127819877.davem@redhat.com><Pine.BSF.4.44.0204211153410.96019-100000@pulcherrima.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>

   From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
   Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:04:39 +0200 (CEST)

   On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, David S. Miller wrote:
   > Not at all, java bugs are not qualified as regressions that can hold
   > up 3.1 being released.

   They are.  Quoting <http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.1/criteria.html>:

Please excuse my error, I forgot that it was Ada getting
the "bugs not qualified as regressions" criteria.

Well, these Sparc eh_frame problems are not regressions come to think
of it.  You couldn't unwind at all through libffi on Sparc in previous
releases.

So my main point still stands that it shouldn't hold up the release
because this is not a regression from previous releases.

References:
- Re: v8.S dwarf2 eh frame issues again :(
  - From: David S. Miller
- Re: v8.S dwarf2 eh frame issues again :(
  - From: Gerald Pfeifer

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