From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22229 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 00:27:08 -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 22141 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 00:26:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sirius.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 00:26:53 -0000 Received: from sirius.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by sirius.codesourcery.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id iAN0QqYE005224 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:26:52 -0800 Received: (from mitchell@localhost) by sirius.codesourcery.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id iAN0QqeO005220; Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:26:52 -0800 Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 01:16:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200411230026.iAN0QqeO005220@sirius.codesourcery.com> From: Mark Mitchell To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Mainline in regression-fix mode after Thanksgiving Reply-to: mark@codesourcery.com X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00777.txt.bz2 I've been staring at Bguzilla for about a week now trying to figure out what to make of the fact that there are more than 200 regressions open against GCC 3.4. True, some of these are low-priority (MMIX or Ada bugs for example) -- but most are not. There are 110 wrong-code, rejects-valid, or ice-on-valid regressions. That's negative progress from October 26th. I realize that people are agressively using the compiler, and that bugs reported is partially a function of the amount of use. I also understand that with all the changes we've got in this release, there are bound to be some problems. However, I think that we've got to take steps to get things in hand. Therefore, effective 12:01 AM Friday, November 26th PST, the usual release-branch rules will be in effect on the mainline. So, regression-fixes only. Patches submitted before that date can still be applied, but other patches will need to be queued for either (a) the mainline (if I lift the release-branch rules before we branch) or (b) GCC 4.1 (if I do not). Port/language maintainers please respect this constraint. The Objective-C++ situation is a special case; the SC has made it a priority to get that functionality into 4.0. Therefore, I'm going to give Zem and Geoff until December 3rd to figure out what to do, and convince anyone else who needs to be convinced. Otherwise, I'm going to postpone Objective-C++ until 4.1. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC mark@codesourcery.com