gcc@gnu.org doesn't like me

[Jeff Sturm]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Bryce McKinlay wrote:
>
> Jeff Sturm wrote:
> 
> >Also keep in mind Mark's planned timeframe for 3.1:
> >
> >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-11/msg00761.html
> >
> >No new features after 12/15.  Of course, libgcj should attempt to adhere
> >to this schedule.  Though it's not clear to me whether a new port is
> >really a "feature".
> >
> 
> Mark has said in the past that the release schedule/rules do not 
> necessarily apply to gcj/libgcj - its up to us to use our discretion 
> about what java changes go in during the stabilization period (asssuming 
> they do not affect other parts of the compiler, of course). My feeling 
> is that 2 months is longer than we need for stabilization work in gcj, 
> and my vote is to continue to accept most changes/enhancements/ports 
> during this period.

Sounds fair to me.  I know Mark is concerned about introducing
regressions, for good reason, but in libgcj there should be far
fewer problems than all of GCC because we don't have the complexity of an
optimizing compiler, and there are far fewer targets supported currently.

Whatever time we have, I'm not optimistic I can test much with my current
schedule :(  (Anybody bootstrap alpha-linux lately?  It segfaults for me.
If I can't figure it out soon I'll throw it up to the list.)

On a positive note, sparcv9 (64-bit) seems to work OK.  Patches
forthcoming...

Jeff