[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcc-3.0 snapshot...



Ben Collins writes:
 > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 01:10:30PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
 > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 12:43:16PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
 > > > For the first time I was able to compile the gcc-3.0 CVS and build glibc
 > > > 2.2.3pre1 with it on sparc-linux. Even more so, there were no errors
 > > > from the glibc make check, and the library installed without any
 > > > problems.

see the thread about gcc bootstraps in March:

	http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-03/msg01319.html
	http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-04/msg00036.html

 > > > What I want to do is upload the current snapshot I have (since I know it
 > > > to be working) into unstable. Hppa and ia64 require gcc-3.0, and I want
 > > > to also get started on a libc6-64 for ultrasparc.

Seems to be the right time. In
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-04/msg00121.html Mark Mitchell asks for 
more testing:

  "If people would begin building commonly used programs (XWindows,
  Emacs, etc.) with the GCC 3.0 branch and reporting any problems, 
  that would be great.  I will set up a more formal mechanism for that
  shortly."

Note that at least on ia64 the ABI for exception handling will
change. Not sure about the other architectures.
 
 > > > Any objections, comments or other patches anyone wants to include?

gcc-version.dpatch from 2.95 should be included (include 'Debian' in
version string).

 > > As a daily user/upgrader on unstable, I enjoy being a guinea pig -), I
 > > would hope that you get feedback from the gcc maintainer(M. Klose?) at a
 > > minimum, before uploading gcc-3.0 to unstable.
 > 
 > Matthias has already turned over gcc-3.0 maintainence to a group of
 > about 9 of us, all on this list, which is why I posted here (which
 > includes Matthias). Matthias remains maintainer of gcc-2.95, solely.

Perhaps we should document this group in the README or in a
README.maintainers.



Reply to: