On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:30:32AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:59:34PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:16:41PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > > * Daniel Jacobowitz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, > > > > > which seems > > > > > to be the latest copy. > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that GCC 3.2 now works on all architectures. > > > > > That means > > > > > we're now past the last big blocker waiting for the transition. Does > > > > > anyone > > > > > know of anything else holding us up, besides someone to manage the > > > > > process? > > > > > > > > > > If not, it sounds like it's time to begin. > > > > > > > > I wonder how well tested it is on all architectures? I'd worry about > > > > things like exception handling and threading being fully tested on all > > > > architectures. > > > > > > > > > When we say "works on all architectures" that means it passes the > > > regression tests as expected. That's no trivial thing either. > > > > Actually, someone needs to find out why the regression tests hang on > > m68k.... that's sort of important. > > that's simple, m68k is getting better, not many regressions in the > testsuite, and then the buildd timeout hits ;-) It should be fixable > within 72 hours (the time gcc needs to build on m68k).
Oh. He he he he he. Should we run a little script to fix this... it could just: - check the last line in the gcc.log - If it has changed, print "testsuite running..." - Sleep for twenty minutes -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer