Re: gcc 4.1 or not
* Wouter Verhelst (firstname.lastname@example.org) [060511 08:59]:
> On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team
> > whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to
> > freeze etch rather soon and also the RC bug count doesn't look too good,
> > and we want to be on time this time :), we think the switch to gcc 4.1
> > as default should only be made if not more than 20 packages become RC
> > buggy by it. Also, the switch should happen latest 1.5 months prior to
> > freeze, that is Jun 15th.
> Additional data point: GCC 4.0 on m68k is mostly crap, and probably the
> reason why we haven't been able to make it back as a release candidate
> architecture yet.
Yes, known. However, we have to consider what is worse - adding more RC
bugginess on all arches, or being bad to one arch already having some
(other) issues. And I think the number of 20 new RC bugs is fair to both
sides (or that's at least what we thought when we discussed about the
> GCC 4.1 fixes a _lot_ of the GCC 4.0 bugs on m68k, and we'd really,
> _really_ love to see it become the default, at the very least on our
> architecture. So, I guess that means we'll have to help out there,
> doesn't it? ;-)
> One: What's the easiest way to extract the list of gcc-4.1 related bugs
> from the BTS?
There is none I know - I asked Martin already yesterday on IRC to
provide such a way.