On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 10:12:46PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > >> I know that, technically, we are not talking about regressions wrt > >> 3.x, still, important packages that used to compile and, well, > >> apparently at least, *work* well, now don't even compile (see > >> c++/19403, c++/21235, many others linked from there). Would be a big > >> deal having more of Kriang's recent work in 4_0 too, or is there > >> something else that you can suggest? > > > > Do we know that (a) the affected programs are valid, and (b) the > > patches will make them compile again? > > > > I understand the compiler did the wrong thing before, but it might be > > that the programs were valid, the compiler did a wrong-but-harmless > > thing, and now 4.0.0 does a wrong-but-harmful thing. If so, I think > > it's reasonable to consider patches (if simple) that change the > > compiler to do the right thing; going back to the wrong-but-harmless > > thing doesn't seem so attractive. > > Thanks for your assessment of the problem: indeed, I can tell you for > sure that (b) it's true and, as reported by Kriang, the patches are > rather simple (but the details of this judgement are up to you, of > course). I'm not 100% sure about (a) but Michael can tell you better: > AFAIK, KDE Kopete used to compile and work well pre-4.0.
I don't quite understand your answer. It seems that (a) is the important issue; if the programs are valid, they compiled before, and they worked before, then it seems there really is a regression, even if we can argue that we were "right by accident" in the past. It seems we need an answer to (a) to settle whether this is a high priority bug.
