Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?

["Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net>]

On 2013-04-10 11:56, Dave Korn wrote:
>    It takes 11 hours on a triple-core machine at -j6 to build and package GCC.
>   In order to guarantee consistent reproduction I always respin the built
> package from -src package through two generations.  It then takes three to
> five days to run enough of the testsuite to be confident that the packaged
> compiler works well.  So it'd be next week at the earliest.

While your diligence is admirable, I think some common sense review can 
be used here, as only one of my patches actually affects the compiler 
itself, and even then only the specs.  I'm not exactly messing around 
with code generation here.

BTW, in your absence, it was agreed that gcc3 should go away and that 
gcc4 should be *the* gcc in the distro.  This will simplify the build 
and drop the dep on 'alternatives'.  Can this get into the next release?

I don't understand why there's a libquadmath0-devel; like the other C 
libraries, this should just be part of gcc-core.  This was only 
necessary for libstdc++, and only so long as .la files were included. 
IIRC we agreed to remove them, but your reason for not doing so in the 
.cygport isn't clear to me.

Also, could you please explain the reasons for the ehdebug, execstack, 
and shared-libgcc patches?


Yaakov