bug with asm statment in egcs-1.0.2

[Joe Buck]

> > No.  As I mentioned before.  1.0.3 is to fix problems for RedHat
> > and that's it.  1.0.3 is already frozen unless RedHat runs into
> > some kind problem in their final builds.

> Sorry, but this sounds a bit worrysome.  There's _much_ more to egcs
> usage than RedHat system builds.  If someone were to report a critical
> bug (possibly with a 3-line patch) in 1.0.x now (with 1.1 unreleased,
> and its release date understandably uncertain) causing, say, the Linux
> kernel or glibc to be miscompiled, would you even consider be make an
> egcs-1.0.x+1 release to fix it ?

If there is a bug that affects the compilation of the Linux kernel or
of glibc, it would affect Red Hat and would therefore be high priority.
But the reason for 1.0.3 is to *quickly* get out a release that is
good enough to build Linux/Alpha.  We can't fix every bug in the universe.

> If the answer is no, I would certainly not be in a position to
> criticise that decision, however you should then clearly state that
> bug reports for 1.0.x are useless (to me, this seems to be especially
> true for C++ bugs).

The bug reports are still useful, of course; it's just that some fixes
will have to wait until 1.1.  This is not gcc-2.8.0 we're building here;
you won't have to wait two years for 1.1.

> Your valuable time is scarce and building new 1.0 releases takes time.
> However, creating meaningful bug reports also takes lots of time.  It
> would be a shame if all that time would be wasted; it also starts to
> remind me of the long time when the point in gcc-2.7 bug reports was
> rather questionable.

Sigh.  You're acting like 1.0.x is all you'll have in your lifetime.
The egcs team isn't going to make you wait 2.5 years for the next major
release.