GCC 4.2/4.3 Status Report (2006-10-17)
As Gerald noticed, there are now fewer than 100 serious regressions open against mainline, which means that we've met the criteria for creating the 4.2 release branch. (We still have 17 P1s, so we've certainly got some work left to do before creating a 4.2 release, and I hope people will continue to work on them so that we can get 4.2 out the door in relatively short order.) The SC has reviewed the primary/secondary platform list, and approved it unchanged, with the exception of adding S/390 GNU/Linux as a secondary platform. I will reflect that in the GCC 4.3 criteria.html page when I create it. In order to allow people to organize themselves for Stage 1, I'll create the branch, and open mainline as Stage 1, at some point on Friday, October 20th. Between now and then, I would like to see folks negotiate amongst themselves to get a reasonable order for incorporating patches. See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-09/msg00454.html I've also reviewed the projects listed here: http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_4.3_Release_Planning The variadic templates project is in limbo, I'm afraid. The SC doesn't seem to have a clear opinion on even the general C++ policy discussed on the lists, which means that Jason, Nathan, and I have to talk about variadic templates and work out what to do. IMA for C++ is another difficult case. This is unambiguously useful, though duplicative of what we're trying to build with LTO. That's not a bad thing, since LTO is clearly at least one more release cycle away, and IMA might be ready sooner. On the other hand, if the IMA changes were disruptive to the C++ front end in general, then that might be a problem. I guess we just have to evaluate the patch, when it's ready. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: GCC 4.2/4.3 Status Report (2006-10-17)
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote: > As Gerald noticed, there are now fewer than 100 serious regressions open > against mainline, which means that we've met the criteria for creating > the 4.2 release branch. (We still have 17 P1s, so we've certainly got > some work left to do before creating a 4.2 release, and I hope people > will continue to work on them so that we can get 4.2 out the door in > relatively short order.) > > The SC has reviewed the primary/secondary platform list, and approved it > unchanged, with the exception of adding S/390 GNU/Linux as a secondary > platform. I will reflect that in the GCC 4.3 criteria.html page when I > create it. > > In order to allow people to organize themselves for Stage 1, I'll create > the branch, and open mainline as Stage 1, at some point on Friday, > October 20th. Between now and then, I would like to see folks negotiate > amongst themselves to get a reasonable order for incorporating patches. Although not a major change in terms of lines of code, my patch to require certain GMP/MPFR versions has the potential to disrupt workflow for people who are relying on older libraries at the moment. The configury bit was approved by DJ for stage1, but do you see any reason to hold back? Or is this posting sufficient warning that people may need to upgrade? (I.e. people should start upgrading their libraries now.) http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00284.html Thanks, --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GCC 4.2/4.3 Status Report (2006-10-17)
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: The configury bit was approved by DJ for stage1, but do you see any reason to hold back? Or is this posting sufficient warning that people may need to upgrade? (I.e. people should start upgrading their libraries now.) I don't see any reason to hold back. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: GCC 4.2/4.3 Status Report (2006-10-17)
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > IMA for C++ is another difficult case. This is unambiguously useful, > though duplicative of what we're trying to build with LTO. Although there are some things you can do with LTO that you can also do with IMA, there are many things that you can do with one but not with the other. For example, I don't believe LTO will give any compilation speed benefits at -O0. I also think that LTO won't be useful in implementing 'export', although obviously that depends on what the final design looks like.
Re: GCC 4.2/4.3 Status Report (2006-10-17)
I am also planning to incorporate many Ada improvements (such as improved support for Ada 2005) and fixes that I was holding while the 4.2 branch was not created, I assume this is not an issue (and very localized to the gcc/ada/ directory of course). Arno
