NightStrike wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 6:10 AM, Paolo Bonzini <bonz...@gnu.org> wrote:
NightStrike wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Given the SC request we need to stay in Stage 4 rather than trying to work
around it.
What if GCC went back to stage 3 until the issue is resolved, thus
opening the door for a number of stage3-type patches that don't affect
1) licensing and 2) plugin frameworks, but are merely bug fixes which
would have long been shaken out by now.
No, not at all. The only benefit we're having from this is that GCC 4.4
should be quite stable already in GCC 4.4.0, let's not destroy this one too.
Stage 3 is bug fix only, so I'm not sure if you agree with me or
not.... I was advocating that we take the time to fix more bugs that
are new for 4.4 and so aren't regressions. We have several that are
in the win64 port that we will have to support for a while in our
first official release.
Treating this delay as an opportunity, this would
be a good thing to do. A slightly longer focus
on closing PRs can't be bad for any target.
--joel
