Re: GCC 4.2.1 Status Report (2007-07-10)

2007-07-12 Thread John David Anglin
The next scheduled GCC 4.2.x release is GCC 4.2.1 on July 13th. PR 32199 is a regression in behavior from 4.2.0. Although a libjava build regression is probably not sufficient justification to block the scheduled release, the change that triggered this regression has nothing to do the

Re: GCC 4.2.1 Status Report (2007-07-10)

2007-07-12 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 7/12/07, John David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The next scheduled GCC 4.2.x release is GCC 4.2.1 on July 13th. PR 32199 is a regression in behavior from 4.2.0. Although a libjava build regression is probably not sufficient justification to block the scheduled release, the change that

Re: GCC 4.2.1 Status Report (2007-07-10)

2007-07-11 Thread Richard Guenther
On 7/11/07, Daniel Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/11/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summary --- The next scheduled GCC 4.2.x release is GCC 4.2.1 on July 13th. As of 5PM PDT tomorrow, please consider the 4.2 branch closed to all changes. If you have outstanding

GCC 4.2.1 Status Report (2007-07-10)

2007-07-10 Thread Mark Mitchell
Summary --- The next scheduled GCC 4.2.x release is GCC 4.2.1 on July 13th. As of 5PM PDT tomorrow, please consider the 4.2 branch closed to all changes. If you have outstanding changes that have been approved, but not committed, make the commits before that time. I plan to build GCC

Re: GCC 4.2.1 Status Report (2007-07-10)

2007-07-10 Thread Daniel Berlin
On 7/11/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Summary --- The next scheduled GCC 4.2.x release is GCC 4.2.1 on July 13th. As of 5PM PDT tomorrow, please consider the 4.2 branch closed to all changes. If you have outstanding changes that have been approved, but not committed, make

Re: GCC 4.2.1 Status Report (2007-07-10)

2007-07-10 Thread Mark Mitchell
Daniel Berlin wrote: PR 32328 -fstrict-aliasing ... This i have a patch for, but it really needs some performance testing. I'm happy to throw it in RC2 if you want to see how it does, with the caveat it may need to be pulled back out if it causes massive performance regressions :) No, I