From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25694 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2002 18:46:58 -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 25517 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2002 18:46:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.codesourcery.com) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2002 18:46:40 -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 g0GAkek01880; Wed, 16 Jan 2002 02:46:40 -0800 Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 11:25:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: Joe Buck , Craig Rodrigues cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: Plans for 3.0.4 ? Message-ID: <7830000.1011177999@gandalf.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200201161740.JAA02347@atrus.synopsys.com> 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: 2002-01/txt/msg01154.txt.bz2 >> Does PR 3145.patch, which affects KDE, now qualify for 3.0.4? > > This is a pretty scary-looking patch: more than 100k. How extensively has > it been tested? What are the binary compatibility issues? (caring only > about binary compatibility for code that 3.0.3 compiles correctly, of > course). Is this fix required to get KDE working reasonably, or can > the problem be coded around? I don't want to try to put this in a 3.0 series release. I think we have to wait for 3.1, which really isn't that far away at this point. I'll have a lot more confidence about the change in that context. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com