Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >>My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target >>milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on. The Solaris problem >>is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it's >>a crisis meriting another release cycle. The C++ change fixed a >>regression relative to 3.4.x, but not 4.0.x. Andreas' change is only >>known to affect m68k. > > ... but IIRC it cripples GCC for m68k; Debian turned up hundreds of > build failures because of this bug and it set builds back several > weeks.
Was this a regression from 4.0.0 or 4.0.1? > Personally, I'd do a 4.0.3 based on current bits. The problem is that it's not just me banging on the release button (which does itself take quite a lot of time, since there's all the secondary upload and web-site work to do); it's also going to mean freezing the release branch and doing a release candidate with current changes, which will further distract from 4.1. And, m68k is not a primary platform. I think the right metric is: if we hadn't known about this bug before 4.0.2 would we be rushing out 4.0.3 right now? I think in this case the answer is clearly no. I think the Solaris problem is the only one which might merit that kind of recation. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
