John Plocher wrote:
>> This ARC Case [ and any subsequent, related ARC Cases ] does not [ do >> not ] >> address the existing GCC 3.4.3 and/or binutils 2.15. There have been >> no change requests for either the upgrade, update, or removal of >> either GCC 3.4.3, or binutils 2.15. >> >> Any change requests pertaining to either GCC 3.4.3 or binutils 2.15 >> must follow the standard operating procedure for submitting change >> requests. Future, unspecified ARC Cases may address binutils 2.15 >> and/or GCC 3.4.3, pursuant to the existence of relevant change requests. >> >> Because of the consequences and complexity of >> updating/upgrading/removing either GCC 3.4.3, or binutils 2.15, >> comprehensive scrutiny and review of any such change requests, >> addressing either GCC 3.4.3 or binutils 2.15, will apply. Consensus >> buy-in from all the Consolidations currently using GCC 3.4.3 and >> binutils 2.15 will be required. > > What consequences and complexity? Having all the Consolidations which currently use GCC 3.4.3 discover that the GCC compiler they use no longer exists, and it has been replaced by a newer compiler, and this was done without providing them a proper transition time. AFAIK, O/N does not compile with either GCC 4.3.1 or 4.3.2. I'll happily stand corrected if that is not the case. Is it unreasonable to provide a reasonable compiler transition time, and determine that "stuff compiles" with the new compiler, before removing the existing compiler, which is at least known to "compile stuff" ? --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stefan.Teleman at Sun.COM
