From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4397 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2006 02:46:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 4147 invoked by uid 48); 7 Nov 2006 02:46:32 -0000 Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 02:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20061107024632.4146.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: "ghazi at gcc dot gnu 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/msg00538.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #34 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 02:46 ------- (In reply to comment #33) > > 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. Well, maybe if the Bessel functions were added to 2.3.0 it would be sufficiently different from 2.2.x to warrent a release. See comment#22. :-) -- ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL|http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc- | |patches/2006- | |10/msg01039.html | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29335