Re: [jakub@redhat.com: Re: 2.95.4, sparc64 issues ?]

[Marc Espie <espie@schutzenberger.liafa.jussieu.fr>]

On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 04:58:55PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> Well, a justification of "Seems to allow libstdc++ to at least compile"
> doesn't make me confident that there has been much thought put into issues
> like, "will it actually work", or "could it be harmful on other targets".
> That makes it unacceptable for a stable branch.

The `could it be harmful on other targets' part is OBVIOUS.
I mean, adding a test to handle some unhandled case RIGHT IN FRONT OF AN
abort() is a complete NO-BRAINER.

As for the rest, yep, I think I want discussion about that.

Specifically, if we need some other sparc64 patch, what is that sub-reg
patch. Where can I get a version that does more or less apply to 2.95.3 ?

I am quite willing to do some testing on OpenBSD targets, and to release
a compiler that would work for us, even if it includes non-standard
patches.

Currently, gcc 3.0.1 is not an option. A gcc 3.x will probably be an option
in a year time, when it becomes somewhat usable.

We can't ship a compiler that miscompiles kde. We can't ship a compiler
that doesn't even compile OpenBSD i386 pic code correctly (no news on my
GOT/GOTOFF problems, rth ?).