* gcc 3.0.1
@ 2001-10-14 7:51 Carlos F Sopuerta
2001-10-15 9:15 ` Janis Johnson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Carlos F Sopuerta @ 2001-10-14 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
This is just to let you know that I have successfully built and
installed GCC 3.0.1. in configuration i586-pc-linux-gnu (Caldera
OpenLinux version 2.2).
########################################################################
# Carlos F Sopuerta #
#----------------------------------------------------------------------#
# Relativity and Cosmology Group #
# School of Computer Science and Mathematics #
# Portsmouth University + ----------------------------------------#
# Mercantile House | * E-mail: carlos.sopuerta@port.ac.uk #
# Hampshire Terrace | * Telephone: + 44 - 23 - 9284 - 5831 #
# Portsmouth PO1 2EG | * FAX: + 44 - 23 - 9284 - 3106 #
# BRITAIN | * URL: http://www.gravity.port.ac.uk/ #
########################################################################
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: gcc 3.0.1
2001-10-14 7:51 gcc 3.0.1 Carlos F Sopuerta
@ 2001-10-15 9:15 ` Janis Johnson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Janis Johnson @ 2001-10-15 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Carlos F Sopuerta; +Cc: gcc
On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 03:41:51PM +0100, Carlos F Sopuerta wrote:
> This is just to let you know that I have successfully built and
> installed GCC 3.0.1. in configuration i586-pc-linux-gnu (Caldera
> OpenLinux version 2.2).
Thanks! I've added this to the GCC 3.0 build status page at
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/buildstat.html .
Janis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* GCC 3.0.1
@ 2001-08-16 11:05 Mark Mitchell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2001-08-16 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
I will be creating another GCC 3.0.1 prerelease today. If you
have oustanding, approved, changes that you have not yet checked in,
please do so ASAP.
I anticipate this being the final prerelease.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 3.0.1
2001-06-22 2:01 ` Joseph S. Myers
@ 2001-06-22 11:24 ` Mark Mitchell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2001-06-22 11:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joseph S. Myers; +Cc: gcc
> What about (non-regression) documentation patches? Should those go to the
> branch (and be applied to the branch where they were applied to the
> mainline only after the branch closed, e.g. merging the cpp and install
> manuals from mainline)?
Sorry; I should have specified. Any and all documentation patches
are OK. The reason is that the risk there is much smaller -- it
is highly unlikely we will somehow critically break the compiler by
documenting additional #pragmas, for example.
>
>> In addition, we should try to fix as many other problems as possible,
>> especially cases where we generate incorrect code.
>
> That is, as many other regression problems, not other bugs?
Right. Our goal is not to fix all bugs; it is to make the 3.0 series
something that everyone feels they can upgrade to safely. That means
plaform support, and that programs that used to work still do.
> What about mainline bugs that are regressions from 3.0? Should those be
> marked "high", for convenience when working on 3.1, but have [3.1] put in
> their synopses to avoid confusing them with 3.0.1-high bugs?
I don't know. This is where GNATS really just doesn't have the
sophistication we need. Priorities should actually be release numbers;
then the priority would be the release in which we hope to fix the bug.
Is there any hope of implementing that? If not, your suggestion sounds
fine to me.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 3.0.1
2001-06-21 14:13 Mark Mitchell
@ 2001-06-22 2:01 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-06-22 11:24 ` Mark Mitchell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2001-06-22 2:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: gcc
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> The check-in rules are similar to those preceding the 3.0 release.
> In particular, every check-in should fix a regression from GCC 2.95.x.
> The usual people can approve patches in the usual way. Patches that
> cause regressions or bootstrap failures are liable to be immediately
> removed. Proceed with caution: it is vital that we not regress
> relative to GCC 3.0 with the GCC 3.0.1 release.
What about (non-regression) documentation patches? Should those go to the
branch (and be applied to the branch where they were applied to the
mainline only after the branch closed, e.g. merging the cpp and install
manuals from mainline)?
> In addition, we should try to fix as many other problems as possible,
> especially cases where we generate incorrect code.
That is, as many other regression problems, not other bugs?
> Let's again mark regressions from GCC 2.95.x as `high' priority bugs.
> We don't need to analyze every bug, but if you find a new regression,
> or you look at a PR and realize it is a regression from GCC 2.95.x (or
> from GCC 3.0, heaven forbid!) mark it is as `high'. We will *not*
> necessarily fix all such bugs -- but we can try. Marking them `high'
> will make it easy for us to find them.
What about mainline bugs that are regressions from 3.0? Should those be
marked "high", for convenience when working on 3.1, but have [3.1] put in
their synopses to avoid confusing them with 3.0.1-high bugs?
--
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* GCC 3.0.1
@ 2001-06-21 14:13 Mark Mitchell
2001-06-22 2:01 ` Joseph S. Myers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2001-06-21 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
I am pleased to see that the world did not stop spinning after we released
GCC 3.0.
However, there are clearly some important issues that we need to fix, and
for that
we need a GCC 3.0.1 release.
The GCC 3.0.1 release will be a critical bug-fix only release. Relevant
information follows.
Thank you,
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
Schedule
--------
2001-08-01 Release GCC 3.0.1
2001-07-21 Freeze, produce release candidate.
All non-documentation changes after this point will be my
express
approval only. I intend to make many fewer such approvals
than
I did during the final week before GCC 3.0.
2001-06-21 Begin development.
Procedures
----------
The check-in rules are similar to those preceding the 3.0 release. In
particular, every
check-in should fix a regression from GCC 2.95.x. The usual people can
approve patches
in the usual way. Patches that cause regressions or bootstrap failures are
liable to
be immediately removed. Proceed with caution: it is vital that we not
regress
relative to GCC 3.0 with the GCC 3.0.1 release.
There are no specific release criteria for this release. However, the most
critical issue is that we support more of the platforms that we did in GCC
2.95. For example, I know that the RTEMS platforms do not work well with
GCC 3.0. From conversations with Joel, many
of the problems are configury; let's fix those. I know that there are
bootstrap failures
and aborts on some embedded systems; let's fix those. Our goal is to
eventualy obsolete
GCC 2.95; in order to do that is that GCC 3.0.1 work well on lots of
systems.
In addition, we should try to fix as many other problems as possible,
especially cases
where we generate incorrect code.
Use of GNATS
------------
Let's again mark regressions from GCC 2.95.x as `high' priority bugs. We
don't need to
analyze every bug, but if you find a new regression, or you look at a PR
and realize
it is a regression from GCC 2.95.x (or from GCC 3.0, heaven forbid!) mark
it is as `high'.
We will *not* necessarily fix all such bugs -- but we can try. Marking
them `high' will
make it easy for us to find them.
Tantalizing Hint
----------------
Stay tuned for information about GCC 3.1. The SC is continuing to debate
how to approach
this release. While there is no guarantee, I would expect resolution
within the next
week or two.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-10-15 9:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-10-14 7:51 gcc 3.0.1 Carlos F Sopuerta
2001-10-15 9:15 ` Janis Johnson
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-08-16 11:05 GCC 3.0.1 Mark Mitchell
2001-06-21 14:13 Mark Mitchell
2001-06-22 2:01 ` Joseph S. Myers
2001-06-22 11:24 ` Mark Mitchell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).