* GCC 8.3 Status Report (2019-02-08)
@ 2019-02-08 8:16 Jakub Jelinek
2019-02-08 11:50 ` Nathan Sidwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2019-02-08 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc; +Cc: Nathan Sidwell, Jason Merrill
Status
======
GCC 7.3 has been released on January 25th, so it is about time to do
GCC 8.3 release now. Unfortunately we have a recent P1 C++ regression
- PR88995. Nathan (or Jason), do you think it can be fixed soon?
In the meantime, can people with backportable patches backport fixes to 8.3,
so that we can release a rc1 soon and do a release a week afterwards?
Quality Data
============
Priority # Change from last report
-------- --- -----------------------
P1 1 + 1
P2 197 + 84
P3 28 - 15
P4 165 - 14
P5 24 - 2
-------- --- -----------------------
Total P1-P3 226 + 70
Total 415 + 54
Previous Report
===============
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-07/msg00379.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 8.3 Status Report (2019-02-08)
2019-02-08 8:16 GCC 8.3 Status Report (2019-02-08) Jakub Jelinek
@ 2019-02-08 11:50 ` Nathan Sidwell
2019-02-08 17:09 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Nathan Sidwell @ 2019-02-08 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Jelinek, gcc; +Cc: Jason Merrill
On 2/8/19 3:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ======
>
> GCC 7.3 has been released on January 25th, so it is about time to do
> GCC 8.3 release now. Unfortunately we have a recent P1 C++ regression
> - PR88995. Nathan (or Jason), do you think it can be fixed soon?
> In the meantime, can people with backportable patches backport fixes to 8.3,
> so that we can release a rc1 soon and do a release a week afterwards?
Ah, I see I caused that by r268029, fixing some other PR. I did have a
look, but didn't have sufficient time to investigate fully.
a) revert the breaking fix, but IIRC that was also fixing a regression?
b) perhaps we shouldn't be sending non-dependent expressions through the
capture machinery, but instead wrapping them in an appropriate
view_convert_expr to make them const?
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: GCC 8.3 Status Report (2019-02-08)
2019-02-08 11:50 ` Nathan Sidwell
@ 2019-02-08 17:09 ` Jason Merrill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jason Merrill @ 2019-02-08 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nathan Sidwell; +Cc: Jakub Jelinek, gcc Mailing List
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 6:50 AM Nathan Sidwell <nathan@acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/19 3:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Status
> > ======
> >
> > GCC 7.3 has been released on January 25th, so it is about time to do
> > GCC 8.3 release now. Unfortunately we have a recent P1 C++ regression
> > - PR88995. Nathan (or Jason), do you think it can be fixed soon?
I think it was fixed by the patch for 88761 I just checked in.
Jason
> b) perhaps we shouldn't be sending non-dependent expressions through the
> capture machinery, but instead wrapping them in an appropriate
> view_convert_expr to make them const?
>
>
> nathan
>
> --
> Nathan Sidwell
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-02-08 17:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-02-08 8:16 GCC 8.3 Status Report (2019-02-08) Jakub Jelinek
2019-02-08 11:50 ` Nathan Sidwell
2019-02-08 17:09 ` Jason Merrill
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).