General
===
As per previous announcements, please do not place a target milestone
on bugs that are not part of the release criteria. For example, since
neither Ada nor Java are part of the release criteria, bugs that
affect only those languages should never have a target milestone.
(It's go
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 23:51, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> The remaining 1.1 projects include:
>
> * Autovectorization Enhancements (some parts)
Not seen yet.
> * SMS Improvements
Part 1 of n (n unknown) submitted and unreviewed so far:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00681.html
> *
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 02:51:52PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> As per previous announcements, please do not place a target milestone
> on bugs that are not part of the release criteria.
Hmm, see below.
> 4.0 Status
> ==
> In order to help us hit the April 15th target for GCC 4.0, plea
On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Greg Schafer wrote:
This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0
target
milestone on this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166
Any chance of making this one a high priority?
Of course this is a glibc bug and not really a gcc
Mark Mitchell wrote:
* Structure Aliasing Part I
Submitted today. I've started reading it over.
Diego.
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:18:58PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Greg Schafer wrote:
>
> >This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0
> >target
> >milestone on this bug:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166
> >
> >Any chan
Mark Mitchell dixit:
>4.1 Status
>==
>
>The 4.1 projects Wiki page shows that four projects have been checked
>in:
Hello etoh-san, do you have a statement about ProPolice for gcc 4?
Are you working on it, or even bringing it into mainline (maybe even
disabled by default, doesn't matter as
Greg Schafer wrote:
This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0 target
milestone on this bug:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166
Any chance of making this one a high priority?
I've restored the target milestone, but I've marked this as low
priority. It wo
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:30:40 -0800, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Schafer wrote:
>
> > This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0 target
> > milestone on this bug:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20166
> >
> > Any chance of making t
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:07:33 +0100, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:30:40 -0800, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Greg Schafer wrote:
> >
> > > This is rather critical, yet a bugmaster saw fit to remove the 4.0.0
> > > target
> > > milestone on this
* Joe Buck:
> If it is only Debian on non-shipped platforms, it would be reasonable to
> ask the Debian x64-64 people to apply the one-line patch to glibc pointed
> to by the PR. It could be a hassle for them now because of the sarge
> freeze, though, so maybe fixincludes would be the way to go.
> The remaining 1.1 projects include:
>
> * Autovectorization Enhancements (some parts)
>
1.2 Incrementally preserve loop-closed form when vectorizing
Submitted today:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01318.html
1.3 Improvements to peeling for alignment
Submitted today:
http://gcc
12 matches
Mail list logo