From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18561 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2002 19:31:52 -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 18545 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2002 19:31:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO piper.synopsys.com) (146.225.1.217) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2002 19:31:51 -0000 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBJJUnT19630; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:30:49 -0800 From: Joe Buck Message-Id: <200212191930.gBJJUnT19630@piper.synopsys.com> Subject: Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch? To: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:19:00 -0000 Cc: phil@jaj.com (Phil Edwards), mec@shout.net (Michael Elizabeth Chastain), gcc@gcc.gnu.org (gcc@gcc.gnu.org) In-Reply-To: <60950000.1040324560@warlock.codesourcery.com> from "Mark Mitchell" at Dec 19, 2002 11:02:40 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01224.txt.bz2 On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 10:42:01PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > >> My question: is it safe for me to stop testing gcc-3_2-branch? That is, > >> what are the chances of another gcc release such as a "gcc 3.2.2" coming > >> from the gcc-3_2-branch? Mark Mitchell writes: > I don't think any decision has been made. Personally, I'm trying to focus > on 3.3/3.4; there's plenty enough to do there. But, if people want another > 3.2 release we can do one. > > If someone else wants to step forward to run a 3.2.2 release, that would > be fine, too. I'd started a release-notes document on the assumption that there would be a 3.2.2. That doesn't imply that therefore we have to do one :-), but it does mean that I have some data. Currently it appears that there are 24 PR fixes that have been added to the 3.2 branch since the 3.2.1 release; 14 of these are ICEs, and 9 are C++ compiler or library bug fixes. It seems that *someone* expects something to happen from all this work. Distros relying on 3.2 compilers might want to pick up these fixes. Some of the fixes are for obscure cases, but some of them people are likely to want to pick up. Here are some highlights: ICEs: 8332 (c++) builtin strlen/template interation causes ICE 8439 (c, not c++) empty struct causes ICE 8518 ICE when compiling mplayer ("extern inline" issue) 8615 (c++) ICE with out-of-range character constant template argument C++/libstdc++: 8214 conversion from const char* const to char* sometimes accepted illegally 7445 poor performance of std::locale::classic() in multi-threaded applications 8399 sync_with_stdio(false) breaks unformatted input 8790 Use of non-thread-safe strtok in src/localename.cc 8887 Bug in date formats with --enable-clocale=generic Optimization: 8794 optimization improperly eliminates certain expressions Preprocessor: 8524 _Pragma within macros is improperly expanded x86-specific (Intel/AMD): 8588 ICE in extract_insn, at recog.c:NNNN (shift instruction) Ideally Mark shouldn't be asked to do a 3.2.2 and 3.3 in about the same timeframe. If someone else wants to volunteer, that would be great. If we are going to do it, I would suggest freezing what we have (unless there's a very good argument for one or two more fixes), do a prerelease tarball, get some testing of that and ship.