Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote: We have been in Stage 3 for a little while now. I'm sure a few more patches that were proposed in Stage 2 will find their way into 4.1, but we're approximately feature-complete at this point. I just committed the following update for our main page. If you'd like to change open for bug fixes to something more strict, please let me know. Gerald Index: index.html === RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v retrieving revision 1.511 diff -u -3 -p -r1.511 index.html --- index.html 25 Jul 2005 10:45:58 - 1.511 +++ index.html 25 Jul 2005 11:11:27 - @@ -65,8 +65,8 @@ mission statement/a./p will become GCC 4.1.0 (a href=gcc-4.1/changes.htmlcurrent changes/a) /dtdd Branch status: - a href=http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-05/msg00224.html;2005-05-04/a - (a href=develop.html#stage2stage 2/a; open for all maintainers). + a href=http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-07/msg00954.html;2005-07-22/a + (a href=develop.html#stage3stage 3/a; open for bug fixes). /dd /dl
Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)
On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these (119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions introduced in the course of 4.1. While it does seem that the regression rate has declined slightly from 4.0, it still seems rather high. I wonder if this includes the ones targeted against 3.4.x which adds about another 50 or so bugs. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)
Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these (119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions introduced in the course of 4.1. While it does seem that the regression rate has declined slightly from 4.0, it still seems rather high. I wonder if this includes the ones targeted against 3.4.x which adds about another 50 or so bugs. You're correct -- I omitted those. In theory, there should be no such bugs; they should all be targeted at 4.0.2 instead, if they apply to 4.[01]. (That's the policy that Gaby and I have been using.) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)
On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these (119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions introduced in the course of 4.1. While it does seem that the regression rate has declined slightly from 4.0, it still seems rather high. I wonder if this includes the ones targeted against 3.4.x which adds about another 50 or so bugs. You're correct -- I omitted those. In theory, there should be no such bugs; they should all be targeted at 4.0.2 instead, if they apply to 4.[01]. (That's the policy that Gaby and I have been using.) Should I move them? Thanks, Andrew Pinski
Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)
Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these (119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions introduced in the course of 4.1. While it does seem that the regression rate has declined slightly from 4.0, it still seems rather high. I wonder if this includes the ones targeted against 3.4.x which adds about another 50 or so bugs. You're correct -- I omitted those. In theory, there should be no such bugs; they should all be targeted at 4.0.2 instead, if they apply to 4.[01]. (That's the policy that Gaby and I have been using.) Should I move them? Please! (Otherwise, I'm happy to do it myself.) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)
On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Please! (Otherwise, I'm happy to do it myself.) All done. -- Pinski
Re: GCC 4.1 Status Report (2005-07-22)
Andrew Pinski wrote: On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Please! (Otherwise, I'm happy to do it myself.) All done. Thanks. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
