Re: Does gcc 3.2 branch bootstrap on RedHat 7.3?

[Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU>]

On 05-Oct-2002, Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> wrote:
> Andreas Tobler <toa@pop.agri.ch> writes:
> 
> > H. J. Lu wrote:
> >
> >>>>/export/build/gnu/gcc-3.2/build-i686-linux/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/stl_rope.h:609: no
> >>>>   type named `allocator_type' in `struct
> >>>> __gnu_cxx::_Rope_rep_base<char,   std::allocator<char> >'
> > []
> >> Mark, Andreas has identified your patch breaks both mainline and 3.2:
> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-10/msg00231.html
> >> Shouldn't we revert it at least on the 3.2 branch?
> >
> > What is about the trunk? Do we wait?
> 
> According to our development rules, we wait 48 hours and then even
> need some approval of two other developers:
> 
>     If a patch is committed which introduces a regression [1], on any
>     target which the Steering Committee considers to be important [2],
>     and the problem is reported to the original poster, and 48 hours
>     pass without either the original poster or any other party
>     indicating that a fix will be forthcoming in the very near future,
>     and two people with write privileges to the affected area of the
>     compiler determine that the best course of action is to revert the
>     patch, then they may revert the patch.
> 
> But I do expect that Mark will be back from vacation on the 8th and
> fix it immediatly.  The question is whether we wait so long or not.

I think it would be best to revert it now.
Mark can easily reapply it once it is fixed.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.