Stable release?

[Godmar Back]

> 
> 
> Andrew wrote:
> > Yes, but then we'd have to tag the egcs source tree and support that
> > version with continuing bug fixes.  Do we really want to do that?
> 
> Maybe not.  If the next snapshot appears reasonable, maybe we can just
> save it away on our web site.  We don't have to make any claims beyond
> the normal snapshot ones, but people can provide "it works for me"
> type anecdotal evidence.
> 

I'd like that.  Ideally, fix the problems on RH 5.2 in tree.c before you do
that and/or the problem with -fno-builtin.  (Or whatever else problem
I'll encounter in the future...)
(I think I'll also try Glenn's suggestion to build only tree.o with 
-fno-builtin.  Thanks for that, btw!)

The main problem for me is that I don't work on gcj-related things
continuously like others do.  Whenever I have some time to get back to 
it, I update the compiler and the libgcj tree and more often than not, one
or both don't work.

Maybe it would be good to install a bonsai/tinderbox like scheme that
continuously recompiles and tests on various platforms and flags
bad checkins?  In particular, I'm concerned about checkins from
the non-gcj part of egcs that inadvertently affect the gcj front-end.  
I'm sure a multi-billion-dollar company like Redhat would have the 
resources to implement something like that.

	- Godmar