Richard,
I would like to revert the cause of the regression reported yesterday
in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-01/msg00197.html - I'll do it in
the next hour, if that is alright?
Cheers
Paul
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>
> It's not my turn to send a status report, but as I plan doing a release
> candidate for GCC 4.3.3 soon I thought a status report for that would
> be in order.
>
> Status
> ======
>
> The GCC 4.3 branch is now frozen in preparation for a release candidate
> for the GCC 4.3.3 release. When the branch is unfrozen again I will
> send a message stating so. All checkins to the branch require approval
> by a release manager now.
>
> There is a single regression that shows up as P1, but as it is not
> a regression on the branch (but from the tree-ssa merge) it does not
> block the GCC 4.3.3 release (but the bug priority is considered the priority
> for the newest release the bug is a regression for).
>
> I am not aware of any issues blocking an immediate release of GCC 4.3.3.
> Please make me aware of such issues by replying to this mail and/or
> by CCing me on bugzillas that are regressions on the GCC 4.3 branch
> but are not marked as such (a regression on the GCC 4.3 branch is a
> bug with a testcase that worked in a previous GCC 4.3 based release
> but fails on the top of the GCC 4.3 branch).
>
>
> Quality Data
> ============
>
> Priority # Change from Last Report
> -------- --- -----------------------
> P1 1 - 4
> P2 137 + 7
> P3 2 - 1
> -------- --- -----------------------
> Total 140 + 2
>
>
> The next status report will be sent by me.
>
> Richard.
>
--
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
--Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
