From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-156667-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29578 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2009 11:48:17 -0000
Received: (qmail 29566 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2009 11:48:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cantor.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:48:11 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) 	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) 	(No client certificate requested) 	by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5C5993717; 	Sun, 20 Sep 2009 13:48:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:48:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2009-09-19)
In-Reply-To: <4AB61783.8070302@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909201347120.4520@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909192244530.4520@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4AB58A42.7030801@gmail.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909201047060.4520@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4AB61783.8070302@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Dave Korn wrote:

> Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> > Note that Stage 3 isn't that strict as it may sound.  Maintainers have
> > quite amount of flexibility deciding what is considered a bug and thus
> > a bugfix during Stage 3 (note that Stage3 is _not_ only for regression
> > fixes).  This includes obviously Graphite and LTO as well as target
> > specific changes.
> > 
> > What you won't see in Stage 3 is rewrites of infrastructure or adding of
> > new optimization passes.
> 
>   Thanks Richard, that's pretty reassuring.
> 
>   BTW, why don't we call this more-flexible-stage-3 "stage 2" any more?  It
> sounds a lot like the way that's still described on develop.html.

Because "New functionality may not be introduced during this period." is
still true for this stage 3 and "support for a new language construct 
might be added in a front-end" is also not wanted.

Richard.