Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 01:16:58 +0800 From: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com> To: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: gcc4 Message-ID: <a78074950512200916g52f97b62ye319498eb8e6d03a@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20051220170155.GA87954@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <43A7BF25.6040901@freebsd.org> <a78074950512200128p354ff67bnc2e7f83c27fb445a@mail.gmail.com> <20051220170155.GA87954@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On 12/21/05, Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 05:28:48PM +0800, Xin LI wrote: [...] > > Is our tree gcc4-safe already? I have not checked for this for a long time... > > most of the tree is and the rest is trivial to fix.. havent tried stability > thought Not the "whole" :-) I am not very confident that these "trivial" fixes are correct. Last time des@ gave me some input about the concerns of API correctness, as some "trivial" fixes would just hide serious API mistakes behind them... Cheers, -- Xin LI <delphij@delphij.net> http://www.delphij.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?a78074950512200916g52f97b62ye319498eb8e6d03a>