GCC 6.5 Status Report (2018-10-12)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GCC 6.5 Status Report (2018-10-12)

Jakub Jelinek
Status
======

It is now time to release GCC 6.5 and close the 6.x branch.
If you have regression bugfixes or documentation fixes that should be
still backported to the branch, please test them and check them in
before Friday, October 19th, when I'd like to create a Release Candidate
of 6.5.


Quality Data
============

Priority          #   Change from last report
--------        ---   -----------------------
P1                0
P2              210   +  35
P3               28   +  20
P4              130   -   4
P5               28   -   1
--------        ---   -----------------------
Total P1-P3     238   +  55
Total           396   +  50


Previous Report
===============

https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-07/msg00005.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GCC 6.5 Status Report (2018-10-12)

Gerald Pfeifer
Hi Jakub,

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> If you have regression bugfixes or documentation fixes that should be
> still backported to the branch, please test them and check them in
> before Friday, October 19th

I'd like to push back
  https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg00076.html
to the GCC 6 branch as well, after having gone head -> 8 -> 7 so far.

Strictly speaking it's not a regression, but appears low risk and
addresses a user reported issue.  

Okay?

Gerald
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GCC 6.5 Status Report (2018-10-12)

Jakub Jelinek
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 08:24:35AM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > If you have regression bugfixes or documentation fixes that should be
> > still backported to the branch, please test them and check them in
> > before Friday, October 19th
>
> I'd like to push back
>   https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2018-10/msg00076.html
> to the GCC 6 branch as well, after having gone head -> 8 -> 7 so far.
>
> Strictly speaking it's not a regression, but appears low risk and
> addresses a user reported issue.  
>
> Okay?

Yes.

        Jakub