Re: GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
On 9/5/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/4/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We still have the nasty aliasing problems: PR32182 [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing optimizations cause co... It's not clear from the PR that this is either an aliasing bug, and not either 1. a C++ FE bug or 2. an invalid testcase While I cannot exclude (1), the testcase is certainly valid. Richard.
Re: GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: One critical issue: has GCC 4.2.x been fully converted to GPLv3, at this point? If not, we'll have to wait until that is done before we can release, per the FSF's instructions. Apart from anything else, we are still awaiting new wording for the various exceptions in use so installed headers and runtime libraries can be converted - I don't know if that's critical for this release, but exceptions for projects looking to release soon are supposed to be a higher priority http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2007-09/msg0.html. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
On 9/5/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/5/07, Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/5/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/4/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We still have the nasty aliasing problems: PR32182 [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing optimizations cause co... It's not clear from the PR that this is either an aliasing bug, and not either 1. a C++ FE bug or 2. an invalid testcase While I cannot exclude (1), the testcase is certainly valid. Can you please update the PR to this effect? It's certainly not clear from reading the comments :) I thought comment #13 was enough ;) It looks like 12.6.2/5-6 specify it enough to make the testcase valid. The BaseClass is only once initialized by the most derived object initializer specification. Richard.
Re: GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
Joseph S. Myers wrote: On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: One critical issue: has GCC 4.2.x been fully converted to GPLv3, at this point? If not, we'll have to wait until that is done before we can release, per the FSF's instructions. Apart from anything else, we are still awaiting new wording for the various exceptions in use so installed headers and runtime libraries can be converted Personally, I don't see how that's a problem, as long as the license on the files with exceptions is still GPLv2 + whatever exception was there before. That's not a change for users. The files with exceptions might not be compatible with GPLv3 by themselves -- but the exception allows them to be linked into complete GPLv3 programs, since it allows combination with anything. However, I'll err on the side of caution and ask the FSF (via the SC list) whether they have any objection to us going ahead. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
Joseph S. Myers wrote: Apart from anything else, we are still awaiting new wording for the various exceptions in use so installed headers and runtime libraries can be converted On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 08:54:08AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: Personally, I don't see how that's a problem, as long as the license on the files with exceptions is still GPLv2 + whatever exception was there before. That's not a change for users. The files with exceptions might not be compatible with GPLv3 by themselves -- but the exception allows them to be linked into complete GPLv3 programs, since it allows combination with anything. Mark, There are no GPLv2-only files in the repository and there never were. The license up until this summer was GPLv2 or any later version. So there is no issue of license incompatibility. Any of the files with exceptions can be linked with GPLv3 code with no problem, and even without an exception there's no problem. An external GPLv2-or-any-later-version front end can also be linked with gcc 4.3 and distributed. There is only a license incompatibility issue for code that is GPLv2 only (without the any later version clause) and the FSF has never accepted such code.
Re: GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
The files with exceptions might not be compatible with GPLv3 by themselves Why? I thought GPLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible.
Re: GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:18:36PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote: The files with exceptions might not be compatible with GPLv3 by themselves Why? I thought GPLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible. They are not; each requires that the work as a whole be licensed the same as the individual file. However, we never had any GPLv2-only files. A GPLv2-or-any-later-version file is compatible with GPLv3.
GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
Summary === The GCC 4.2.1 release was July 18, so our target for a 4.2.2 release is September 18th. I plan to build RC1 this Sunday, September 9. If all goes well, we'll have 4.2.2 out around the 18th; if not, we'll delay a bit from there. One critical issue: has GCC 4.2.x been fully converted to GPLv3, at this point? If not, we'll have to wait until that is done before we can release, per the FSF's instructions. Quality === Here are the open regressions: Priority # --- P1 26 P2108 P3 3 Total 137 Many of the P1s are ICEs, so at least users know the compiler is broken... We still have the nasty aliasing problems: PR32182 [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing optimizations cause co... PR32328 [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing causes skipped code and various other such problems. We also have: PR32327 [4.2 Regression] Incorrect stack sharing causing removal ... though Diego's last comment seems to indicate that's something of a could-happen bug at the moment. In short, I don't see anything here that would prevent a release, though, of course, I'd certainly be happier to get the number of regressions (and, particularly, P1 regressions) down. Previous Report === http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-07/msg00704.html -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: GCC 4.2.2 Status Report
On 9/4/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summary === The GCC 4.2.1 release was July 18, so our target for a 4.2.2 release is September 18th. I plan to build RC1 this Sunday, September 9. If all goes well, we'll have 4.2.2 out around the 18th; if not, we'll delay a bit from there. One critical issue: has GCC 4.2.x been fully converted to GPLv3, at this point? If not, we'll have to wait until that is done before we can release, per the FSF's instructions. Quality === Here are the open regressions: Priority # --- P1 26 P2108 P3 3 Total 137 Many of the P1s are ICEs, so at least users know the compiler is broken... We still have the nasty aliasing problems: PR32182 [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing optimizations cause co... It's not clear from the PR that this is either an aliasing bug, and not either 1. a C++ FE bug or 2. an invalid testcase PR32328 [4.2 Regression] -fstrict-aliasing causes skipped code Hard to fix without regression 28778, i'm still working on how to do it. and various other such problems. We also have: PR32327 [4.2 Regression] Incorrect stack sharing causing removal ... though Diego's last comment seems to indicate that's something of a could-happen bug at the moment. In short, I don't see anything here that would prevent a release, though, of course, I'd certainly be happier to get the number of regressions (and, particularly, P1 regressions) down. Previous Report === http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-07/msg00704.html -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
