An important patch for egcs 1.0.1

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Buck <jbuck@Synopsys.COM> writes:

    >> It's not obvious to me that just because 1.0.1 miscompiles
    >> glibc 2.x the long double fix can't wait for 1.1.

    Joe> HJ just sent the patch, and it seems short, and furthermore,
    Joe> he says it's been in the snapshots since before egcs-1.0.1.
    Joe> So why the resistance?

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear.  In the mail you refer to, I
also wrote:

    However, if the fixes are simple, my points may be moot, and I
    don't pretend to pass judgement on the fixes themselves.  So, this
    is not an argument not to put the fixes in; only one about how we
    should determine what fixes are to go in.

I was not, therefore, trying to "resist" any particular fix.  You'll
note that I explicitly express ignorance about the particular patch in
question.

However, I stand by my statement that the bugs we fix for 1.0.2 should
be: 

  truly egregious and horrible bugs that can be fixed with very simple
  changes

The statement you quoted was meant to imply that the mere fact that
glibc cannot be compiled with the egcs release branch does not
immediately imply (in my opinion) that we are not ready for that
release.  If however, you find that bug very disturbing (and obviously
many people do!) and you believe that HJs fixes are simple (and
obviously many people do!), then I think it's clear that the fixes
should go in.  

I really didn't mean to create any controversy, or to criticize any
patches (I haven't even looked at them!).  I simply meant to caution
all of us against spending too much time messing with 1.0.2; releasing
1.1 will fix many more problems and add many more features.  I bet we
all agree; the only question is where to draw the line on 1.0.2.  I
advocate drawing the line soon, even if it means that some programs
will not work.  Again, that's not a specific comment on this
*particular* program (glibc) or the *particular* patch (HJ's long
double repair).

-- 
Mark Mitchell		mmitchell@usa.net
Stanford University	http://www.stanford.edu