Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
| > >
| > > [ omitting gcc-patches ]
| > >
| > > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
| > > > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
| > > > because they are targeted fo
>
> Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> | > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> | > > discontinued.
> | >
> | > 4.0 still seems
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >
> > [ omitting gcc-patches ]
> >
> > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> > > because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
> >
> > If
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
| > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
| > > discontinued.
| >
| > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an activ
>
> [ omitting gcc-patches ]
>
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> > because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
>
> If there is consensus, I'll be happy to take the appropriate steps,
> which inclu
[ omitting gcc-patches ]
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open
> because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
If there is consensus, I'll be happy to take the appropriate steps,
which include:
1. Updating o
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:23:36PM -0500, David Fang wrote:
> User chiming in: before retiring 4.0, one would be more easily convinced
> to make a transition to 4.1+ if the regressions from 4.0 to 4.1 numbered
> fewer. In the database, I see only 79 (P3+) regressions in 4.1 that are
> not in 4.0 (
On 1/5/07, David Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > > > discontinued.
> > >
> > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
> > >
> > > I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a
> > > 4
> > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > > > discontinued.
> > >
> > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
> > >
> > > I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a
> > > 4.0.4 release?
> >
> > I'd like to see it closed. W
> I'd like to see it closed, too, all Linux/BSD vendors I know of are either
> still using 3.x or have switched to 4.1 already.
Yes, 4.1.x seems to have been selected by various vendors as the codebase for
their first GCC4-based release.
--
Eric Botcazou
On 1/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > discontinued.
>
> 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active br
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > discontinued.
>
> 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
>
> I don't mind closing it, myself. D
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> discontinued.
4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a
4.0.4 release?
Ian
Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
discontinued.
David
This is something I've had on my disk for a few months; committed and
also activated on gcc.gnu.org.
In case anyone wonders, the reason why some snapshot was created earlier
during the day was due to me debugging something at one point. :-)
Gerald
2007-01-05 Gerald Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15 matches
Mail list logo
