On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree > with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC > 4.1 at this point in the release cycle.
I don't like it either, but what's the alternative? To have gcc not work with glibc properly? > It is clearly against our development model and negatively impacts our > schedule and the stabilization work done by many in the last months and > was not even raised on the steering committee (which I would consider a > requirement in such a case). I agree that the matter should have been raised far earlier, and that glibc decisions of this kind should be coordinated with gcc, and in this case the issue should have been discussed far earlier. But given what is happened, do you really think it's proper for us to just say no, we are rigidly sticking to our schedule and we don't care what the consequences are? 4.1 is not out yet. Once it is out, we'll have an ABI/API we can't mess with until 4.2. If this was a screwup that no one noticed until this point, then better now than after 4.1 ships. I am not advocating a particular course of action other than to say that I'm willing to take the time to get it right, regardless of previously published schedules.