1 |
2004.0/2004.1? time warp? 2005.0/.1? |
2 |
|
3 |
assuming the slightly stronger code strictness doesn't cause to many |
4 |
nasty bugs and assuming we can iron out all the ICEs. |
5 |
|
6 |
^^ yeah sure like we will have more devs help test a new toolchain, you |
7 |
forget it doesnt come with translucency and shadows, something that |
8 |
guarantees you plenty of (dev) testers, what's gcc, just some thing |
9 |
portage calls to build stuff, who would care about that? |
10 |
so much easier to complain about things than help fix them |
11 |
|
12 |
|
13 |
> |
14 |
> 3.5 is now 4.0, and as far as I know I'm the only person doing serious |
15 |
> testing (testsuites included). From what I've seen so far, it's fairly |
16 |
> rock-solid for where it is at the moment (early stage3), certainly |
17 |
> more so than 3.4 was; there are still internal compiler errors on |
18 |
> important stuff like glibc but these invariably get fixed in the last |
19 |
> week-long "big push" where they desperately call for testers in a mad |
20 |
> rush to get the thing released! That said, there's no way gcc-4 will |
21 |
> be in ~x86 for 2004.3, almost no way (unless it surprises me) it'll be |
22 |
> in ~x86 for 2004.0, but may be in most ~arches for 2004.1, assuming |
23 |
> the slightly stronger code strictness doesn't cause to many nasty bugs |
24 |
> and assuming we can iron out all the ICEs. |
25 |
|
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |