From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22062 invoked by alias); 17 Dec 2001 18:54:40 -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 21972 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2001 18:54:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.codesourcery.com) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Dec 2001 18:54:38 -0000 Received: from gandalf.codesourcery.com (IDENT:mitchell@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gandalf.codesourcery.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fBHJuA201261; Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:56:10 -0800 Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 11:37:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: Richard Kenner cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Freeze timing and questions Message-ID: <5680000.1008618969@gandalf.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <10112171749.AA23338@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00912.txt.bz2 --On Monday, December 17, 2001 12:49:02 PM +0000 Richard Kenner wrote: > The point is to spend the next couple of months stabilizing the > compiler. That means that we find important bugs, from GNATS or > elsewhere, and try to fix them. It's OK if they're not regressions; > now is a great time to fix that horrible bug that's been annoying you > since 1996. We are now, however, focusing on quality -- not new items > for the 3.1 release announcement bullet list. > > This is somewhat ambiguous as to what "important" means, but I'd > suggest a criteria that looks at the fix. A local fix is acceptable > even for a minor bug, but fixes that are more complex or riskier for > some reason should only be done for more important bugs. I do not think there is any benefit to trying to define this too precisely, but what you say makes sense. I do not want to over-constrain people. Ideally, I think, people would go through GNATS and fix things that they think they are able to fix. That is what I plan to do personally, with the time that I have available. Reviewers should in general discourage fixes of the form "the register allocator was broken, so I wrote a new one" preferring, instead, "the register allocator did not correctly handle multiple abnormal critical edges in a flow graph; fixed thusly". > This is OK, but at this point I think it is unreasonable to actually > support Chill in 3.1; its status would be equivalent to the KDE > patches in the contrib/ directory. > > A trickier question is what about Ada? Active work is under way to get I believe that we have already agreed that Ada will not be part of this release. Therefore, I think the Ada people should be free to do whatever they like, so long as it does not affect other languages. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com