Hello All,
Grigori Fursin wrote:
Basically, we currently see 3 complementary categories of GCC plugins, depending
on the nature of the extension: production, experimentation/research, and new pass
integration. Each category naturally calls for slightly different API features.
I am not sur
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Still, I would like to hear an opinion on what to do with regard to
> long standing bugs that are clearly not going to be fixed in stage3/4.
> This was the main point of my message.
I don't see any need to do anything different; I think we're all capable
of distinguishing
Dear all,
Zbigniew and I prepared a page on GCC Wiki comparing several current plugin
mechanisms (some parts should be updated) with some suggestions to move forward:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_PluginComparison
In case we mixed up or misunderstood something about other plugin
efforts, update this
Snapshot gcc-4.3-20090212 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.3-20090212/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.3 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches
>>> However, I don't agree that P2 regressions aren't a factor. If we have
>>> a ton of crashing on wrong-code, etc., regressions that adds up to a
>>> release that won't work well for people.
>>
>> In which case the important ones should be P1 ...
>
> No, that misses the point. A mass of bugs, e
Hi,
This week's notes are posted on the GCC wiki:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Graphite_Phone_Call/2009_02_11
Last week I did not announced it, but the notes are also available:
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Graphite_Phone_Call/2009_02_04
If people want to attend the graphite phone call, please drop me an
Richard Guenther wrote:
>> However, I don't agree that P2 regressions aren't a factor. If we have
>> a ton of crashing on wrong-code, etc., regressions that adds up to a
>> release that won't work well for people.
>
> In which case the important ones should be P1 ...
No, that misses the point.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>> I think the only reasonable release criteria is zero P1 regressions over
>>> some period. 50 P2 regressions doesn't make a release blocker, neither
>>> is 49 P2 regressions a clear sign for a non-blocked release.
>
