Seongbae Park wrote: > On 5/1/07, Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 01 May 2007 14:28:07 -0700, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I agree that it would be appropriate to backport the patch to gcc 4.2. >> >> Lets first get the patch which fixes the ICE regression that this >> patch causes approved :). >> >> Which can be found at: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01746.html
This patch is OK for mainline. As for backporting to 4.2, this isn't a regression, so the default answer would be "no". I'm unconvinced that this is a sufficiently serious problem to merit violating that policy; after all, we're only talking about a spurious warning. (However, the other bug here is that we don't have a warning option for this, so users can't use -Wno-<something> to turn this off.) In any case, we're not going to do this for 4.2.0. As per the policy I posted recently on PRs, please find a C++ maintainer who wants to argue for backporting this and ask them to mark the PR as P3 with an argument as to why this is important to backport. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
