* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
@ 2002-12-27 23:58 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2002-12-27 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pfeifer; +Cc: gcc
For what it's worth, my gdb testing shows no regressions between
gcc 3.2 and gcc gcc-3_2-branch%20021224 on native i686-pc-linux-gnu.
That is the *gdb* test suite; I'm not running gcc test suites yet.
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
@ 2002-12-28 3:47 John David Anglin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: John David Anglin @ 2002-12-28 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: mark, jbuck, gdr
> 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.
I have a fix for parisc-linux that I would like to backport from 3.3.
It's not a regression, but 3.3 or later won't bootstrap with 3.2 because
of continued code growth in expr.c. The change is small and the impact
is limited to the pa.
Dave
--
J. David Anglin dave.anglin@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
2002-12-19 11:31 ` Mark Mitchell
2002-12-19 13:19 ` Joe Buck
@ 2002-12-27 13:21 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Gabriel Dos Reis @ 2002-12-27 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: Phil Edwards, Michael Elizabeth Chastain, gcc
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
| --On Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:54:13 AM -0500 Phil Edwards
| <phil@jaj.com> wrote:
|
| > 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?
|
| 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 think a 3.2.2 release will be of great help as it has non-negligible
fixes.
If the only obstacle for having such a release is lack of time, then I
would volunteer for making that release provided I'm explained the
necessary steps.
-- Gaby
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
2002-12-15 21:46 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2002-12-19 0:15 ` Phil Edwards
@ 2002-12-27 12:46 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2002-12-27 12:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain; +Cc: gcc
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002, 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?
High, I'd say, but this usually depends on the feedback users and
developers give to Mark (and the community), and also on how long
it'll take to stabilize the 3.3 branch.
> I'm just looking for some insight into the branch status here.
> My default plan is to keep testing with gcc-3_2-branch even after
> gcc-3_3-branch is created, as it appears to be active.
That sounds like a good plan, especially in the (hopefully unlikely)
case we add regressions on the 3.2 branch.
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.pfeifer.com/gerald/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
@ 2002-12-20 9:02 Volker Reichelt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Volker Reichelt @ 2002-12-20 9:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: mark
I'm all in favor for a 3.2.2 release, but I would suggest to wait with a
release until more bugs get fixed.
Currently we have about 34 bugs in GNATS that are marked as 3.2/3.3
regressions. Since (hopefully) many of them will be fixed for 3.3 anyway,
it would be nice to have the patches backported for the 3.2 branch
(at least the easy ones).
Even releasing 3.2.2 a couple of weeks after 3.3 in order not to have
two releases in the same timeframe would be fine IMHO.
Regards,
Volker
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
2002-12-19 15:25 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2002-12-19 22:13 ` Kaveh R. Ghazi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Kaveh R. Ghazi @ 2002-12-19 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tromey; +Cc: gcc, mec, phil
> From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
>
> >>>>> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R Ghazi <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
>
> Kaveh> Here's what turned up with a quick grep in the various ChangeLogs
> Kaveh> since 3.2.1. We've got around 30 PRs fixed plus a bunch of other
> Kaveh> non-PR related fixes.
>
> It occurs to me that we could enhance the cvs commit script to record
> the branch on which a PR-related checkin is made. Then we could do a
> gnats query to pick up this info. What do you think of this idea?
> Tom
Sounds like it would make generating the release notes easier for
Joe. ;-)
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
2002-12-19 13:15 Kaveh R. Ghazi
@ 2002-12-19 15:25 ` Tom Tromey
2002-12-19 22:13 ` Kaveh R. Ghazi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2002-12-19 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kaveh R. Ghazi; +Cc: gcc, mec, phil
>>>>> "Kaveh" == Kaveh R Ghazi <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> writes:
Kaveh> Here's what turned up with a quick grep in the various ChangeLogs
Kaveh> since 3.2.1. We've got around 30 PRs fixed plus a bunch of other
Kaveh> non-PR related fixes.
It occurs to me that we could enhance the cvs commit script to record
the branch on which a PR-related checkin is made. Then we could do a
gnats query to pick up this info. What do you think of this idea?
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
@ 2002-12-19 15:23 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2002-12-19 15:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark, phil; +Cc: gcc
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.
Thanks, this helps me plan.
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
2002-12-19 13:19 ` Joe Buck
@ 2002-12-19 15:16 ` Eric Botcazou
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Eric Botcazou @ 2002-12-19 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joe Buck; +Cc: Mark Mitchell, Phil Edwards, Michael Elizabeth Chastain, gcc
> 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.
I have one: we still have regressions from the 3.2 release regarding loops
compiled with -O2 -funroll-loops on K6 (PR opt/8599) and powerpc. The patch
is awaiting review and testing on powerpc here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-12/msg00787.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-12/msg00875.html
--
Eric Botcazou
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
2002-12-19 11:31 ` Mark Mitchell
@ 2002-12-19 13:19 ` Joe Buck
2002-12-19 15:16 ` Eric Botcazou
2002-12-27 13:21 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 2002-12-19 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: Phil Edwards, Michael Elizabeth Chastain, gcc
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
@ 2002-12-19 13:15 Kaveh R. Ghazi
2002-12-19 15:25 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Kaveh R. Ghazi @ 2002-12-19 13:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mark; +Cc: gcc, mec, phil
> 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.
Here's what turned up with a quick grep in the various ChangeLogs
since 3.2.1. We've got around 30 PRs fixed plus a bunch of other
non-PR related fixes.
I think the decision of whether to spin another release depends on how
serious are the problems these fixes address. (I haven't looked myself.)
--Kaveh
gcc:
PR opt/8794
PR other/8882
PR c/7622
PR preprocessor/8524
PR 8362
PR c/8639
PR optimization/8275
PR c/8588
PR c/8518
PR c/8439
PR optimization/8599
cp:
PR c++/8442
PR C++/8031
PR c++/8372
PR C++/8799
PR c++/8615
PR c++/5919
PR c++/8727
PR c++/8663
PR c++/8332
PR c++/8493
PR c++/8214
libstdc++-v3:
PR libstdc++/8887
PR libstdc++/8230
PR libstdc++/8708
PR libstdc++/8790
PR libstdc++/7445
PR libstdc++/6745
PR libstdc++/8399
PR libstdc++/8399
PR libstdc++/8230
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
2002-12-19 0:15 ` Phil Edwards
@ 2002-12-19 11:31 ` Mark Mitchell
2002-12-19 13:19 ` Joe Buck
2002-12-27 13:21 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 2002-12-19 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phil Edwards, Michael Elizabeth Chastain; +Cc: gcc
--On Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:54:13 AM -0500 Phil Edwards
<phil@jaj.com> wrote:
> 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?
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.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
2002-12-15 21:46 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
@ 2002-12-19 0:15 ` Phil Edwards
2002-12-19 11:31 ` Mark Mitchell
2002-12-27 12:46 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Phil Edwards @ 2002-12-19 0:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain; +Cc: gcc
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?
>
> I note that several of the ChangeLog's have been updated since
> the release of gcc 3.2.1 on 2002-11-20:
>
> gcc/f/ChangeLog
> gcc/cp/ChangeLog
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
> gcc/ChangeLog
> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
>
> I'm just looking for some insight into the branch status here.
> My default plan is to keep testing with gcc-3_2-branch even after
> gcc-3_3-branch is created, as it appears to be active.
Likewise. I'd like to see at least one more release of 3.2. A number of
bugs have been fixed on the branch since 3.2.1.
Phil
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch?
@ 2002-12-15 21:46 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2002-12-19 0:15 ` Phil Edwards
2002-12-27 12:46 ` Gerald Pfeifer
0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain @ 2002-12-15 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
(I asked this on gcc-help first and was directed here.)
I run a gdb test bed with several versions of gcc. I note that
gcc-3_3-branch has been created, so I will pick it up and
incorporate it in my test bed.
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?
I note that several of the ChangeLog's have been updated since
the release of gcc 3.2.1 on 2002-11-20:
gcc/f/ChangeLog
gcc/cp/ChangeLog
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
gcc/ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
I'm just looking for some insight into the branch status here.
My default plan is to keep testing with gcc-3_2-branch even after
gcc-3_3-branch is created, as it appears to be active.
Thanks,
Michael C
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-12-28 0:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-12-27 23:58 What are the chances of another release from gcc-3_2-branch? Michael Elizabeth Chastain
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-12-28 3:47 John David Anglin
2002-12-20 9:02 Volker Reichelt
2002-12-19 15:23 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2002-12-19 13:15 Kaveh R. Ghazi
2002-12-19 15:25 ` Tom Tromey
2002-12-19 22:13 ` Kaveh R. Ghazi
2002-12-15 21:46 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2002-12-19 0:15 ` Phil Edwards
2002-12-19 11:31 ` Mark Mitchell
2002-12-19 13:19 ` Joe Buck
2002-12-19 15:16 ` Eric Botcazou
2002-12-27 13:21 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2002-12-27 12:46 ` Gerald Pfeifer
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).