From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29499 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 17:58:49 -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 29492 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 17:58:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.codesourcery.com) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 17:58:48 -0000 Received: from gandalf.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gandalf.codesourcery.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g34HtwD30657; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:55:58 -0800 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:17:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: Joe Buck , Phil Edwards cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "bkoz@redhat.com" Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 Release Message-ID: <35760000.1017942958@gandalf.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200204040001.QAA13794@atrus.synopsys.com> References: <200204040001.QAA13794@atrus.synopsys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 --On Wednesday, April 03, 2002 04:01:34 PM -0800 Joe Buck wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 02:23:00PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: >> > Now we need to weed out any not-really-high-priority bugs in GNATS, and >> > fix what's there. >> >> There are four hi-pri reports for libstdc++. They may or may not >> qualify as "not really," if you and Benjamin would like to make that >> call. >> >> >> 3759 -- basically fallout from the committee LWG's DR 225 and 229. I >> vote that this PR be suspended until those DRs get resolved, just because >> there doesn't seem to be anything effective we can do until then. > > This one should not be high priority, since the standards committee is > battling it out. Certainly given the April 15th schedule, we should punt. Agreed, I've downgraded it. >> 3628 -- the std::rel_ops operators cause ambiguous overloads with vector >> and string iterators. = > I'd really like to see this one fixed. IMHO, the fixing isn't hard Do you have a patch? Is the problem the result of a compiler bug, or a library bug? >> 4260 -- Is it HPUX? Is it libtool? Is it libstdc++? Is it collect2? > No idea. But is this issue even relevant for the 3.1 release, where minor > ABI breakage is *planned*? (to fix some ABI conformance bugs). If not, > then it's not a blocker for the release. I've closed this issue. As you say, we know there is ABI breakage. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com