Re: gcc 4.1 or not
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:00:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * 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.
Yes, I understand that; I just wanted to explain for people not familiar
with the issues, that's all.
> 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
Sure. Which is mostly why I'm suggesting to help out.
> > 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.
Right. For now, I'll start off with suggesting upstream to have a look
at #361396 :-)
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4