From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21849 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2009 21:19:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 21833 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Sep 2009 21:19:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ew0-f226.google.com (HELO mail-ew0-f226.google.com) (209.85.219.226) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 21:19:07 +0000 Received: by ewy26 with SMTP id 26so5555482ewy.29 for ; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.7.16 with SMTP id 16mr5765916ebg.14.1254259132476; Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm58656eyz.26.2009.09.29.14.18.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AC27D21.6020905@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:08:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2009-09-19) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00619.txt.bz2 Richard Guenther wrote: > Status > ====== > > The trunk is in Stage 1. Stage 1 will end on Sep 30th. Richard, I've got a patch for adding what I think (but may be wrong) counts as a new feature - shared library libstdc++ as DLLs on windows platforms - and it's been stuck in review limbo for two and a half months now, during which time I have been repeatedly updating it, retesting it, and even fixed a couple of minor bugs that cropped up in that time: refs: The original series of patches at [0/4] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01042.html [1/4] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01044.html [2/4] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01046.html [3/4] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01047.html [4/4] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01048.html and the various tweaked and updated respins at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-07/msg01631.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg00877.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-08/msg01570.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg00209.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg00500.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-09/msg01963.html and test results at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-07/msg01813.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-07/msg01814.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-08/msg03258.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09/msg00291.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09/msg00292.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09/msg00644.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09/msg01450.html We have ~48 hours left for stage 1 and I can't be confident of getting it reviewed in the remaining time, so I'd like to make a special request: can you, as RM, please say that this is OK in principle and that if I can get v3 approval (it already has all other necessary approvals) I can check it in during stage 3 before we branch? cheers, DaveK