Re: gcc-4.1 status in unstable
Hi Matthias,
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 02:20:39PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> gcc-4.1 4.1.1-19 in unstable now looks like not showing build time
> regressions compared to 4.1.1-13 in testing, validated on amd64.
> Lucas Nussbaum volunteered to build testing from 2006-10-24 with -13
> and -17, the results can be found at [1]. The failures are detailed
> below and supposed to be fixed in either -19 by reverting three
> upstream changes, or in new packages uploaded to unstable. I would
> like to ask porters to do a rebuild with -19 on their architecture,
> where that seems to be possible within a recent time.
Reviewing the changelog, I note the following:
4.1.1ds2-17 is listed as closing PR c++/29408, and 4.1.1ds2-18 is listed as
reverting this patch. Does that mean 392327 and 393010 should be reopened?
If so, have we just traded one bug marked "serious" for another?
Bug #387989 is listed as "addressed" by another revert in 4.1.1ds2-18.
Should this bug also be downgraded?
In addition, several of the "m68k" patches touch shared files:
m68k-java.dpatch touches java/boehm.c, m68k-dwarf2.dpatch touches
gcc/dwarf2out.c, and m68k-peephole-note.dpatch and m68k-prevent-swap.dpatch
both touch gcc/recog.c. How certain is it that these patches don't cause
regressions for other architectures?
> In summary the -19 package did see improvement with about 100
> regressions fixed upstream compared to the -13 in testing. I'm not
> (yet) proposing inclusion of -19 in testing, but calling for testing
> on other architectures than amd64.
Other than my uncertainty that reverting the PR 29408 change will actually
be a net win, -19 looks good to me, and I'm ok with pushing it into testing
whenever it's ready (which seems to first require manual removal of libssp0
from unstable for those archs where you've dropped it).
Thanks,
--
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/
Reply to: