From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16582 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2004 19:28:37 -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 16567 invoked from network); 30 Aug 2004 19:28:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.enyo.de) (212.9.189.167) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Aug 2004 19:28:36 -0000 Received: (debugging) helo=deneb.enyo.de ip=212.9.189.171 name=deneb.enyo.de Received: from deneb.enyo.de ([212.9.189.171]) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp id 1C1rpU-000169-4x for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:28:36 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 4.34) id 1C1rpS-000400-9B for gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Aug 2004 21:28:34 +0200 To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29) References: <10408301022.AA24170@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <1093863754.17130.27.camel@pc.site> <20040830090622.GD30497@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <1093888894.17130.45.camel@pc.site> From: Florian Weimer Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1093888894.17130.45.camel@pc.site> (Laurent GUERBY's message of "Mon, 30 Aug 2004 20:01:34 +0200") Message-ID: <87zn4czaql.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01511.txt.bz2 * Laurent GUERBY: > Is the requirement for not release GCC with broken Ada on x86 and x86_64 > too strong? When was the last successful bootstrap of mainline, with Ada enabled? I understand that Ada is already in much better shape than we expected it to be before the tree-ssa merge (and that's certainly good news!), but I really doubt we should make a release criterion the quality of a component that has received very little testing by the general GCC community.