From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25989 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2002 19:01:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25981 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 19:01:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO newton.math.purdue.edu) (128.210.3.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 19:01:29 -0000 Received: from banach.math.purdue.edu (lucier@banach.math.purdue.edu [128.210.3.16]) by newton.math.purdue.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/PURDUE_MATH-4.0) with ESMTP id g35J1Q803281; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:01:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from lucier@localhost) by banach.math.purdue.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/PURDUE_MATH-4.0) id g35J1Pq20096; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:01:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 11:23:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200204051901.g35J1Pq20096@banach.math.purdue.edu> From: lucier@math.purdue.edu To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Propose PR 6160 as high priority Cc: lucier@math.purdue.edu X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 In my opinion, PR 6160 is serious enough to cause a 3.1 release delay. It means, for example, that one cannot drop gcc 3.1 into any GNU/Linux distribution with an old version of gnatcc and have it bootstrap with /configure --prefix=... ; make bootstrap (Florian Weimer and I exchanged some e-mails about this; he may not agree with my analysis, but I haven't seen any proof yet that it's wrong.) I don't think a distribution can go out that won't bootstrap without changing --enable-languages on a large subset of free software systems. Brad Lucier