From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19912 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2006 23:27:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 19549 invoked by uid 48); 5 Nov 2006 23:27:41 -0000 Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20061105232741.19548.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "vincent at vinc17 dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00424.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #33 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-11-05 23:27 ------- (In reply to comment #32) > (In reply to comment #31) > > (In reply to comment #30) > > So, I don't think a mpfr_signgam alone would really be useful. So, I think that > > choice 2 would be better. > > Okay, sounds fine. Would this make it into 2.2.1 or 2.3? For compatibility reasons (i.e. the 2.2.x versions must have the same interface), this can only be in 2.3.0. > And do you have any very rough timeframe for each release so I can plan > accordingly for gcc? A pre-release of 2.2.1 should be there soon; there are still bugs being fixed (they will be ported to the 2.2 branch once this is complete). I don't know about 2.3.0; probably in a few months, because there currently aren't many differences from the 2.2 branch. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29335