On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Sounds good to me; certainly as soon as 4.3.0 gets out and gets wider
> > testing, people will find things. In the past we only used the 4th digit
> > for paper-bag issues (like failure to bootstrap on a major platform or
> > broken release tarb
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:30:46PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > > I suggest just letting 4.3.0 out into the world (finish the release
> > > process), and mention the caveat a
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 06:30:46PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > I suggest just letting 4.3.0 out into the world (finish the release
> > process), and mention the caveat about the cld issue in the announcement.
> > We would then have time to decide wheth
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Joe Buck wrote:
> I suggest just letting 4.3.0 out into the world (finish the release
> process), and mention the caveat about the cld issue in the announcement.
> We would then have time to decide whether to do a quick 4.3.0.1, or not.
It certainly does need finishing (e.g. t
Hi,
I'd like to check in the fix for PR target/35189 into gcc 4.3.1:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-02/msg00729.html
It has been approved for 4.3. But I want to give it a little on trunk first.
Thanks.
H.J.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sta
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:56:07AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Status
> ==
>
> GCC 4.3.0 release has been tagged in SVN, tarballs uploaded
> to gcc.gnu.org (though not to ftp.gnu.org yet).
> The branch is still frozen though, until we agree on what if
> anything to do about the implied cld i
