> Done.
Thank you very much.
--
Eric Botcazou
Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Agreed. But I'm requesting a "caveat" note about the Solaris regression here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html#4.0.2
> mentioning the workaround (g++ -pthreads) and the link:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2005-09/msg00984.html
Done.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitche
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 1. Move the ChangeLog entries on the 4.0 branch to accurately reflect
> the released bits.
>
> 2. Modify Bugzilla to reset the target milestone for the three PRs in
> question.
>
> 3. Modify gcc_release to prevent this situation in future.
These steps have now been taken.
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>I've decided not to do another release. I think it's too much effort
>>for too little gain. The C++ and m68k patches are things that might
>>just as easily not have been applied in the first place; we certainly
>>wouldn't have considered either PR a showstopper. The Solari
> I've decided not to do another release. I think it's too much effort
> for too little gain. The C++ and m68k patches are things that might
> just as easily not have been applied in the first place; we certainly
> wouldn't have considered either PR a showstopper. The Solaris problem
> is unfort
Kean Johnston wrote:
>> I'd appreciate feedback. (I don't promise to be bound by the majority
>> view, though.)
>
> I seem to recall in the past that they did patch releases.
> From both a tagging purity point of view and reproducability
> point ov view, why not create a branch off 4.0.2, apply t
I'd appreciate feedback. (I don't promise to be bound by the majority
view, though.)
I seem to recall in the past that they did patch releases.
From both a tagging purity point of view and reproducability
point ov view, why not create a branch off 4.0.2, apply the
fixes that were missed, tag it
Matthias Klose wrote:
Mark Mitchell writes:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target
milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on. The Solaris problem
is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it's
a crisis meriti
Mark Mitchell writes:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >>My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target
> >>milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on. The Solaris problem
> >>is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it's
> >>a crisis meriting anoth
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:59:45AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> It doesn't have to a formal release. I would just make a snapshot from
> the 4.0 branch and point the affected people to it. If there isn't
> enough, you can always make another snapshot. You can update 4.0.2
> release web page and mention
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 11:03:31AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:06:07AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> >
> > > Comparing the cp/ChangeLog files from 4.0.2 and the 4_0 branch, it looks
> > > like the fix is in the release according to the current Chan
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:54:22AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Was this a regression from 4.0.0 or 4.0.1?
I doubt it.
> > Personally, I'd do a 4.0.3 based on current bits.
>
> The problem is that it's not just me banging on the release button
> (which does itself take quite a lot of time, sinc
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:06:07AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Ulrich Weigand wrote:
>
> > Comparing the cp/ChangeLog files from 4.0.2 and the 4_0 branch, it looks
> > like the fix is in the release according to the current ChangeLog, but
> > in fact it wasn't:
>
> Indeed, cvs log confirms that
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:54:22AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >>My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target
> >>milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on. The Solaris problem
> >>is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The key question is whether to do an immediate 4.0.3 to catch up to what
> we intended. (That's not entirely trivial, in that things have now been
> checked in on the 4.0 branch, so we would have to temporarily back out
> some patches, or apply tags ver
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>My inclination is to do nothing (other than correct the target
>>milestones on these bugs in bugzilla) and move on. The Solaris problem
>>is bad, and I beat up on Benjamin to get it fixed, but I'm not sure it's
>>a crisis meriting another release cycle. The C++ change
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:06:07AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> The key question is whether to do an immediate 4.0.3 to catch up to what
> we intended. (That's not entirely trivial, in that things have now been
> checked in on the 4.0 branch, so we would have to temporarily back out
> some patche
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Comparing the cp/ChangeLog files from 4.0.2 and the 4_0 branch, it looks
> like the fix is in the release according to the current ChangeLog, but
> in fact it wasn't:
Indeed, cvs log confirms that the revision was made to cp/init.c on
September 22.
It appears that the rel
--- Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Comparing the cp/ChangeLog files from 4.0.2 and the
> 4_0 branch, it looks
> like the fix is in the release according to the
> current ChangeLog, but
> in fact it wasn't:
Indeed,
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/cp/init.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&only_with_tag=gc
0200
@@ -1,7 +1,19 @@
-2005-09-20 Release Manager
+2005-09-29 Jakub Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+
+ PR c++/21983
+ * class.c (find_final_overrider): Move diagnostic about no unique final
+ overrider to...
+ (update_vtable_entry_for_fn): ... here.
+
+2005-09-27 Release M
Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
>
>>GCC 4.0.2 has been released.
>
>
> Results on s390(x)-ibm-linux are here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01323.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01324.html
>
> Unfortunately, it is not zero-FAIL after
On 9/29/05, Ulrich Weigand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>
> > GCC 4.0.2 has been released.
>
> Results on s390(x)-ibm-linux are here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01323.html
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01324.html
>
> Unfortunately, i
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> GCC 4.0.2 has been released.
Results on s390(x)-ibm-linux are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01323.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg01324.html
Unfortunately, it is not zero-FAIL after all; at the last
minute this one appears to
Hello again!
Okay, gcc-4.0.2 built just fine on an embedded mpc8540 (ppc, e500, SPE
extension):
$ ./gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Target: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-4.0.2/configure --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix
--enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-languages=c,c++,objc
Hello!
GCC 4.0.2 has been released.
Great! Thank you all! :-))
Well, I am using an embedded mpc8540 (ppc, e500, SPE extension) system
and can work like on a native system. Currently, the system is not very
busy, so I can run some tests if it's useful for you...
Can you tell me (point to some d
GCC 4.0.2 has been released.
This release is a minor release, containing primarily fixes for
regressions in GCC 4.0.1 releative to previous releases.
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.0/changes.html#4.0.2
This release is available from the FTP servers listed here:
http://www.gnu.org/order/ftp.html
The
26 matches
Mail list logo
