From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21029 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2010 18:35:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 20969 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2010 18:35:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f51.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f51.google.com) (74.125.82.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 18:34:43 +0000 Received: by wwi18 with SMTP id 18so1278956wwi.8 for ; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 11:34:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.50.19 with SMTP id y19mr962004web.52.1283711680845; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 11:34:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.164.65 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Sep 2010 11:34:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4C83E189.1030601@codesourcery.com> References: <4C7D26EA.6020807@codesourcery.com> <4C83DB83.9080404@codesourcery.com> <4C83E189.1030601@codesourcery.com> Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 18:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 From: NightStrike To: Mark Mitchell Cc: GCC , "Joseph S. Myers" , Richard Guenther , Jakub Jelinek Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-09/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > On 9/5/2010 11:23 AM, NightStrike wrote: > >>> It's not so much a matter of "checking off". =A0It's a combination of t= he >>> SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats >>> of the port. =A0I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, >>> personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a >>> target platform for GCC to merit that status. >> >> Ouch. =A0What criteria do you use for that analysis? > > I can't say what criteria the SC uses; I don't know what basis other SC > members use to decide. > > I use my own instincts (which, I admit, is not a scientific basis) for > deciding. =A0I spend much of my life talking to various stakeholders in > GCC, and so I have a reasonable feel for where people are presently > using GCC, and where they would like to use it. =A0Thus far, I've > certainly heard of some interest in 64-bit Windows, but nowhere near as > much as 32-bit Windows or Cygwin. > > I certainly don't mind raising the issue, if you want me to do that; I'm > happy to carry messages to the SC independent of my own opinions. Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards stacked in our favor :)