From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22867 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2009 13:48:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 22847 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Sep 2009 13:48:39 -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; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:48:33 +0000 Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bromo.med.uc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E792B2D53; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:48:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from howarth@localhost) by bromo.med.uc.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n8UDmUZV004746; Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:48:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:00:00 -0000 From: Jack Howarth To: Richard Guenther Cc: Gerald Pfeifer , Dave Korn , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2009-09-19) Message-ID: <20090930134830.GA4673@bromo.med.uc.edu> References: <4AC27D21.6020905@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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/msg00638.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:49:40AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > > Now, submitting a one liner as your first attempt@a new pass today > > and then claiming the rest are just fixes, would be a stretch :-), but > > for a patch like yours it does not seem unreasonable. > > Just to followup once and answer all the multiple requests that have > been (and will be) come up - during stage 3 it is up to the respective > maintainers to decide what is considered a bugfix and whether to allow > changes to go in that were submitted during stage 1. The release > managers trust the maintainers to make stage 3 a success - which means > mainly fixing fallout from stage 1 or to complete features that have > been checked in during stage 1. > > Thanks, > Richard. > Richard, Is it safe to assume that with the LTO patches currently unreviewed, the Oct. 1st deadline for stage 1 will be pushed back? I ask because Iain is still working on the final patch to solve PR39888 for darwin. If we in fact miss the transition to stage 1, can this patch still go into gcc 4.5 since it is target specific? Allowing it in would have the advantage of setting the stage for reinstalling... http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg01259.html into gcc 4.5 without breaking darwin (since we could just default on -muse-shared-libgcc-ext for that platform). Thanks in advance for any clarifications as I am really hoping some form of... http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18657 can make it into gcc 4.5. Jack