From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8152 invoked by alias); 21 Sep 2009 18:57:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 8138 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Sep 2009 18:57:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (HELO bromo.med.uc.edu) (129.137.3.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:57:07 +0000 Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bromo.med.uc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74D77B2DBB; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:57:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from howarth@localhost) by bromo.med.uc.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n8LIv4mr003632; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:57:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:57:00 -0000 From: Jack Howarth To: Cary Coutant Cc: Richard Guenther , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2009-09-19) Message-ID: <20090921185704.GA3598@bromo.med.uc.edu> References: <4AB58A42.7030801@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00415.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:23:11AM -0700, Cary Coutant wrote: > >> =A0 So aren't we now likely to lose the first few days of what little = remains of > >> stage 1 waiting for trunk to start working again, then have a mad rush= of > >> people falling all over each other to get their new features in in the= last > >> couple of days? =A0One of which will inevitably break trunk again and = block all > >> the others and then stage 1 will be over and it'll all be too late? > > > > I am not aware of any big patches that are still pending. =A0Coming up > > with new yet unknown things now wouldn't be a good timing anyway. >=20 > I was hoping to get the dwarf4 branch merged into trunk during stage > 1. While it's not a small patch, it's also not really that intrusive > in that it consists mostly of new code that runs only with the > -gdwarf-4 option. I've been testing it on a lot of big code bases for > the last few months, and haven't found any new bugs for a more than a > month now, so I think it's ready. >=20 > I'll work on merging top-of-trunk into the branch early this week and > then send a patch to merge back into the trunk. >=20 > -cary >=20 Cary, Are you saying that current gcc trunk should require -gdwarf-4 to issue dwarf4 commands? I ask because r151815... http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg00220.html causes dwarf4 by default. Is there a consistent policy on this? Currently in PR41405, there is a proposal for a -gstrict-dwarf option which I guess should be expanded to cover your patch if gcc 4.5 will be defaulting to -gdwarf-4 being enabled. Jack