On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:41:18PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes: > > If the gcc maintainers think that pointing g++ at g++-3.4 on these archs is > > the best option, I'm game. One disadvantage is that it wouldn't let us get > > feedback about what else might be wrong with g++-4.0 on those architectures, > > but we probably already have all the information we're going to get about > > the current round of toolchain packages. > The point I'm making is that it's a *release critical* bug. The > relevant gcc should not be in testing on those archs. It's not. The bug doesn't cause data loss; it's not a security bug; it doesn't render the package unuseable or mostly so. It renders the package unuseable for a particular set of affected software, but it is not *mostly* unuseable because *most* C++ packages still build fine g++-4.0 in spite of this error. I also doubt that we've ever shipped a toolchain that had *no* ICEs, and dropping back to g++-3.4 certainly doesn't buy us that either. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature