On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de> wrote: > Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de> wrote: >>> Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Georg-Johann Lay <a...@gjlay.de> wrote: >>>>> Richard Guenther wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> All commits to the 4.7 branch need explicit release manager approval. >>>>>> AVR >>>>>> isn't primary/secondary so please do not change anything before is >>>>>> released 4.7.0 for it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Richard. >>>>> What is the exact procedure in that case? >>>>> Wait until approve from release manager in that case? >>>>> Who is the release manager, and should I CC for such changes? >>>>> Or just hope the patch is not overseen. >>>> The exact procedure is to do bugfixing during stage3/4, for release >>>> blockers >>>> that pop up after a release candidate is created (like now), CC a release >>>> manager (Jakub, me, Joseph) for patches that you like to get in even >>>> though the branch is frozen. Usually only bugs that prevent basic >>>> functionality >>>> (like building a target) can be fixed at this point, for everything >>>> else you have >>>> to wait until after 4.7.0 is released and the branch opens again for >>>> regression >>>> fixes. >>>> >>>> Richard. >>> I was not aware that the 4.7.0 branch is completely frozen for the next 3 >>> weeks; I thought the usual rules for backporting patches do apply... >> >> No they don't. How would you expect that testing a release candidate would >> work if we put in any not strictly necessary changes? That would make a >> release candidate quite pointless. >> >>> The patch changes only in libgcc/config/avr and gcc/config/avr >>> >>> The patch does not fix a blocker in the sense that without it avr cannot be >>> built, but the changes are essential. >> >> Surely not so essential as that they cannot be put in place to make the 4.7.1 >> release then. > > Okay. > > In that case I'd like to add a note to the caveats section in wwwdocs > > ./gcc-4.7/changes.html > > that the avr-gcc 4.7.0 is not intended for public consumption and because of > developer shortage at least 4.7.1 should be used.
Completely unusable? It looks like it only affects a subset of all devices: "To read from flash on devices with more than 64KiB of flash" It sounds like a random wrong-code bug, which do happen. There is just a timeframe where random fixes are not good. Was 4.6.3 "intended for public consumption"? Be reasonable. Richard.