On 24 May 2012 02:16, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Wednesday 23 May 2012 04:17:51 Richard Guenther wrote: >> On Wed, 23 May 2012, Andreas Jaeger wrote: >> > On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 09:56:31 Richard Earnshaw wrote: >> > > [...] >> > > This is a behaviour change. It would need RM approval for a release >> > > branch. >> > > >> > > R. >> > >> > There was agreement by all pushing for the change to use it. So, let's >> > ask the release managers about their opinion, >> >> I'm ok with the change - but of course only to carry one less patch >> in our local tree. What do others think? It would definitely (anyway) >> need documenting in changes.html (for both 4.7.1 and 4.8). > > i've done this for Gentoo and 4.5.0+, so if all the distros are going to be > doing this in 4.7.x anyways, makes sense to me to do it in the official > branch.
Agreed. Google have done it for their 4.6, Fedora have done it for 4.7 (?), and we've done it for Linaro GCC 4.6 and 4.7. My concern is that a point release of GCC would stop working against the latest release of GLIBC. I'm happy to prepare a backport to GCC 4.6, GCC 4.7, and GLIBC 2.15 so the next set of point releases will all work with each other. This would match what the distros are doing. -- Michael
