Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread Andrew Pinski
> > Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > | > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > > | > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be > | > > discontinued. > | > > | > 4.0 still seems

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: | > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be | > > discontinued. | > | > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an activ

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread Joe Buck
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:23:36PM -0500, David Fang wrote: > User chiming in: before retiring 4.0, one would be more easily convinced > to make a transition to 4.1+ if the regressions from 4.0 to 4.1 numbered > fewer. In the database, I see only 79 (P3+) regressions in 4.1 that are > not in 4.0 (

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On 1/5/07, David Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be > > > > discontinued. > > > > > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch. > > > > > > I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a > > > 4

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread David Fang
> > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be > > > > discontinued. > > > > > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch. > > > > > > I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a > > > 4.0.4 release? > > > > I'd like to see it closed. W

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread Eric Botcazou
> I'd like to see it closed, too, all Linux/BSD vendors I know of are either > still using 3.x or have switched to 4.1 already. Yes, 4.1.x seems to have been selected by various vendors as the codebase for their first GCC4-based release. -- Eric Botcazou

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread Richard Guenther
On 1/5/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be > > discontinued. > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active br

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread Joe Buck
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 07:26:27AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be > > discontinued. > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch. > > I don't mind closing it, myself. D

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
David Edelsohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be > discontinued. 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch. I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a 4.0.4 release? Ian

Re: Build snapshots according to a more regular schedule

2007-01-05 Thread David Edelsohn
Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be discontinued. David