The link on gcc.gnu.org for the GCC 4.1 status refers to an email about GCC 4.2
Regards,
Jon
On 9/9/06, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kenny Simpson wrote:
What is the status of the 4.1 branch? Any word on 4.1.2?
My current plan is to do a 4.1.2 along with 4.2.0. My concern has been
that with 4.2.0 moving slowly, trying to organize another release might
just distract the
Kenny Simpson wrote:
What is the status of the 4.1 branch? Any word on 4.1.2?
My current plan is to do a 4.1.2 along with 4.2.0. My concern has been
that with 4.2.0 moving slowly, trying to organize another release might
just distract the developer community.
However, I realize that's a
What is the status of the 4.1 branch? Any word on 4.1.2?
thanks,
-Kenny
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I've now reviewed the open regressions against the GCC 4.1 branch.
There are 101 serious (P3 or higher) regressions against GCC 4.1, the
vast majority of which also apply to 4.2. Therefore, fixing these
regressions provides a double benefit: both the release branch and the
next release will be
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 02:04:10PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
I've now reviewed the open regressions against the GCC 4.1 branch.
There are 101 serious (P3 or higher) regressions against GCC 4.1, the
vast majority of which also apply to 4.2. Therefore, fixing these
regressions provides a
Thus far, the feedback for GCC 4.1 RC1 seems very positive. There have
been very few problems reported, and none that look to me to be fatal flaws.
I plan to make a pass over the open regressions, looking for
showstoppers. At this point, my inclination is to apply a very limited
number of
On 2/14/06, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the last few days, many of the key obstacles to a 4.1 release were
removed, including, but not limited to:
1) The -mlong-double-128 patches have gone in.
2) Jason fixed some RVO issues.
3) Michael fixed the zero-width bitfield vs. #pragma
Richard Guenther wrote:
PR26258: wrong code caused by incorrect alias analyis.
This is now fixed on both the branch and the mainline.
Good.
I guess you meant 26258, the patch for 26029 is by Zdenek and still
lacks a review:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00933.html
I see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00833.html
hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 has some cxg problems, but I don't
know if 4.0 worked at all there.
A testsuite run with ada for 4.0.3 is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00893.html.
The run terminated before completing.
On the Ada side for 4.1:
- x86-linux is fine, 0 ACATS FAIL on i686 and i486
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00632.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg00148.html
- powerpc-darwin doesn't bootstrap = PR 22533, regression from 4.0),
Richard, Eric, Andrew, do you
- powerpc-darwin doesn't bootstrap = PR 22533, regression from 4.0),
Richard, Eric, Andrew, do you have a status for powerpc-darwin on 4.1?
PR 22533 is presumably fixed now. powerpc-darwin may or may not bootstrap
Ada, but it looks like a target problem if it doesn't.
- three ACATS
The release of GCC 4.1 was scheduled for January 18th. Given the fact
that I've not yet built release candidates, that date is not achievable.
We have 63 regressions open against GCC 4.1, but only six are P1. Since
P1s are showstoppers, that means we're not yet ready to start building
release
It's now been a month since we created the 4.1 branch.
We've still got 90 open PRs against 4.1, including about 20 P1s. So, we
have our work cut out for us, if we're going to get to a release near
the nominal scheduled date of January 19th. Let's knock 'em down.
My intention is to create the
We've made very good progress during the regression-only period on the
mainline. From 219 regressions on the 10th, we're down to just 149
about two weeks later. Unfortunately, we made most of that progress in
the first week to ten days; we've slowed down over the last week.
There are still 44
On October 4, 2005 02:46, Mark Mitchell wrote:
The number of bugs targeted at GCC 4.1 has declined to 225 from 250 in
my September 7th status report:
Mark, could you post the query you use for this? The query I've got gives
me a list of 289 bugs. Thanks.
The number of bugs targeted at GCC 4.1 has declined to 225 from 250 in
my September 7th status report:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-09/msg00179.html
The number of critical (wrong-code, ice-on-valid, rejects-valid)
regressions has declined to 61 from 77. So, we're still fixing about
one net
I have two separate questions to ask:
1. what is the status on 21766 (a 4.1 regression)? bootstrap has been
broken on Windows (cygwin and mingw) for more that 4 months now, is it
expected to be fixed before branch?
2. what's the status for fortran wrt the quality push? can we still
All of the usual suspects (Berlin, Bosscher, Henderson, Hubicka,
Mitchell, Novillo, etc.) have bugs with our names on them. I think we
can knock quite a few these down relatively easily.
I've fixed (or am about to commit patches for) the 4.1 regressions
assigned to me.
Diego, if you have
DJ Delorie wrote:
Since August 21st, when I sent my last status report, we've reduce the
number of bugs targeted at 4.1 from 271 to 250; about a bug a day.
On the gcc home page, we have a (now obsolete) link to the latest
status.
...
We're also missing the status link for the 4.0.1
Since August 21st, when I sent my last status report, we've reduce the
number of bugs targeted at 4.1 from 271 to 250; about a bug a day. 77
of these bugs are wrong-code, ice-on-valid-code, or rejects-valid, down
from 91. So, that suggests that the net progress is mostly coming from
fixing
Since August 21st, when I sent my last status report, we've reduce the
number of bugs targeted at 4.1 from 271 to 250; about a bug a day.
On the gcc home page, we have a (now obsolete) link to the latest
status. We also have a link to the definition of stage 3. Could we
add a direct link to
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My first comment is that we had a lot of bugs targeted at 4.1.0 that
should never have been so targeted. Please remember that bugs that do
not effect primary or secondary targets should not have a target
milestone. There are several PRs that seem to
Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My first comment is that we had a lot of bugs targeted at 4.1.0 that
should never have been so targeted. Please remember that bugs that do
not effect primary or secondary targets should not have a target
milestone. There are
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
We have been in Stage 3 for a little while now. I'm sure a few more
patches that were proposed in Stage 2 will find their way into 4.1,
but we're approximately feature-complete at this point.
I just committed the following update for our main page.
We have been in Stage 3 for a little while now. I'm sure a few more
patches that were proposed in Stage 2 will find their way into 4.1,
but we're approximately feature-complete at this point. Thank you for
respecting the process. I'm going to make a call for 4.2 features
when the 4.1 release
On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these
(119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions
introduced in the course of 4.1. While it does seem that the
regression rate has declined slightly from 4.0,
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these
(119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions
introduced in the course of 4.1. While it does seem that the
regression rate has
On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these
(119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions
introduced in the course of 4.1.
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jul 22, 2005, at 4:22 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
There are 225 regressions open against GCC 4.1. About half of these
(119) are not regressions in 4.0, i.e., they are new regressions
introduced in
On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Please! (Otherwise, I'm happy to do it myself.)
All done.
-- Pinski
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jul 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Please! (Otherwise, I'm happy to do it myself.)
All done.
Thanks.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
according to the Wiki:
# Autovectorization Enhancements
Items 1.4, 2.1, 2.3 (1.3)
Items 1.4 and 2.3 are in,
On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
# CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
# Compilation Level Analysis of Types and Static Variables (1.3)
# Pre-Inline Optimizations (1.3)
These two depend on
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
# CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
When this goes in, I'll submit the conversion of rest_of_compilation to
use the pass manager (I
On May 4, 2005, at 11:49 PM, Dorit Naishlos wrote:
GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
according to the Wiki:
# Autovectorization Enhancements
Items 1.4, 2.1,
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 22:40 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
according to the Wiki:
# Structure Aliasing Part II
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 12:19:07PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Wed, 2005-05-04 at 22:40 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it
Dorit Naishlos wrote:
GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
according to the Wiki:
# Autovectorization Enhancements
Items 1.4, 2.1, 2.3 (1.3)
Items 1.4 and
Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Thursday 05 May 2005 07:40, Mark Mitchell wrote:
# CFG Transparent Inlining, Profile-Guided Inlining (1.3)
This one was submitted on April 29, but nobody has reviewed it.
# Compilation Level Analysis of Types and Static Variables (1.3)
# Pre-Inline Optimizations (1.3)
GCC 4.1 is going rather well thus far.
Technically, Stage 1 ended on April 25th, though I failed to announce
that. There are a few stage 1 tasks that have not made it in yet,
according to the Wiki:
# Autovectorization Enhancements
Items 1.4, 2.1, 2.3 (1.3)
# CFG Transparent Inlining,
41 matches
Mail list logo
