Re: 3.2 transition
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 09:30:32AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 09:59:34PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 11:16:41PM +0000, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > > * Daniel Jacobowitz (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> > > > > Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, which seems
> > > > > to be the latest copy.
> > > > >
> > > > > My understanding is that GCC 3.2 now works on all architectures. That means
> > > > > we're now past the last big blocker waiting for the transition. Does anyone
> > > > > know of anything else holding us up, besides someone to manage the process?
> > > > >
> > > > > If not, it sounds like it's time to begin.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder how well tested it is on all architectures? I'd worry about
> > > > things like exception handling and threading being fully tested on all
> > > > architectures.
> > >
> > >
> > > When we say "works on all architectures" that means it passes the
> > > regression tests as expected. That's no trivial thing either.
> > Actually, someone needs to find out why the regression tests hang on
> > m68k.... that's sort of important.
> that's simple, m68k is getting better, not many regressions in the
> testsuite, and then the buildd timeout hits ;-) It should be fixable
> within 72 hours (the time gcc needs to build on m68k).
Oh. He he he he he. Should we run a little script to fix this... it
- check the last line in the gcc.log
- If it has changed, print "testsuite running..."
- Sleep for twenty minutes
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer