From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 107917 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2019 14:31:09 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 101135 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2019 14:30:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,TIME_LIMIT_EXCEEDED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 spammy=H*i:sk:846F367, H*f:sk:846F367, somewhere X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2019 14:30:20 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94505AE80; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 14:30:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 14:31:00 -0000 From: Richard Biener To: Paul Koning cc: Tom de Vries , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Gerald Pfeifer Subject: Re: [RFC] Update Stage 4 description In-Reply-To: <846F367A-8DFA-43DC-B0C5-EBFFB068628C@comcast.net> Message-ID: References: <869742ac-5f7e-7673-48c4-f393a1e2eb65@suse.de> <846F367A-8DFA-43DC-B0C5-EBFFB068628C@comcast.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LSU 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 On Wed, 9 Jan 2019, Paul Koning wrote: > > > > On Jan 9, 2019, at 3:42 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > > > > [ To revisit https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-04/msg00385.html ] > > > > The current formulation for the description of Stage 4 here ( > > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html ) is: > > ... > > During this period, the only (non-documentation) changes that may be > > made are changes that fix regressions. > > > > Other changes may not be done during this period. > > > > Note that the same constraints apply to release branches. > > > > This period lasts until stage 1 opens for the next release. > > ... > > > > This updated formulation was proposed by Richi (with a request for > > review of wording): > > ... > > During this period, the only (non-documentation) changes that may > > be made are changes that fix regressions. > > > > -Other changes may not be done during this period. > > +Other important bugs like wrong-code, rejects-valid or build issues may > > +be fixed as well. All changes during this period should be done with > > +extra care on not introducing new regressions - fixing bugs at all cost > > +is not wanted. > ... > > Is there, or should there be, a distinction between primary and non-primary platforms? While platform bugs typically require fixes in platform-specific code, I would think we would want to stay away from bugfixes in minor platforms during stage 4. The wording seems to say that I could fix wrong-code bugs in pdp11 during stage 4; I have been assuming I should not do that. Is this something that should be explicitly stated? I think it's somewhere stated that during Stage 3 non-primary/secondary targets as well as non-C/C++ languages have no restrictions. Of course while technically true breaking builds is still not wanted. For Stage 4 things are somewhat different I think, not sure if it's anywhere spelled out. Richard.