This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.3/3.4/head (was: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- Date: 17 Mar 2004 05:25:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: 3.3/3.4/head (was: [3.3/3.4/head] fix 14535)
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <20040316003346.GA31411@twiddle.net><m3hdwp5qas.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><Pine.BSF.4.58.0403160931560.90675@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at><m3smg9qjc8.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><Pine.LNX.4.58.0403161257010.26679@wotan.suse.de><m3k71kvmef.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><0D61AF52-7761-11D8-95E0-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu><Pine.BSF.4.58.0403162353580.90675@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:
| [ gcc-patches -> gcc ]
|
| On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| > Why are we arguing about a patch which Mark is already said okay for
| > 3.4.0?
| > See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14535#c7> for the
| > approval.
|
| It's not this specific patch, it's a general issue: should we apply
| fixes to release branch X without making sure they are also applied
| to X+1?
For regression fixes, I believe it makes sense to apply them to X even
if it does not make it into X+1.
The reason is that the patch would be fixing something that is already
a regression in X+1. So the issue is just moving the point of
regression. For patches that are not regression fixes, we want to
make sure that they apply toboth X and X+1.
-- Gaby