From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18861 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2003 18:52:26 -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 18854 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2003 18:52:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out1.apple.com) (17.254.0.52) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 31 Jan 2003 18:52:25 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0VIqKw16038 for ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:52:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:52:20 -0800 Received: from apple.com (isolde.apple.com [17.201.24.249]) by scv1.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id h0VIqJs08698; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 10:52:20 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:44:00 -0000 Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , Benjamin Kosnik , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" To: Mark Mitchell From: Matt Austern In-Reply-To: <48900000.1044031690@warlock.codesourcery.com> Message-Id: <221AE814-354D-11D7-A302-00039390D9E0@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg01794.txt.bz2 On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 08:48 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Nobody seems to be objecting particularly much to the idea of leaving > stage 1 for GCC 3.4 on March 15th. So, let's make that firm. We've > already got two major pieces of new technology: a new C++ parser, and > PCH support. I have two concerns about the March 15 deadline. First, a technical concern: people have also been talking about putting the new register allocator into 3.4. I'd like to see that as a third major piece of new technology, which would imply a later deadline. Second, a process concern: March 15 for the end of 3.4 phase 1 is awfully close to the 3.3 code freeze. I hate to see major deadlines on two branches so close to each other. I'm afraid people might get nervous about missing a 3.4 deadline, and won't feel like they're able to spend much time on 3.3 regressions. I'd be happier if the end of 3.4 phase 1 were well after the 3.3 code freeze. --Matt