Re: gcc HEAD bad stabs (?)

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

cgf> Hmm.  Have you considered sending email with a subject like "The
cgf> continual degradation of stabs with gcc" or something like that?
cgf> I'd do it but then someone would ask for details...

Well, gcc has a process in place: I file P1 bugs, I mark them
as "[3.4 regression]", Mark Mitchell in his capacity as release manager
tracks all the regression bugs.  We can't really make other people
fix bugs.  Look to our own house; the number of open gdb bugs goes up
and up and up.

When the season comes to cut the 3.4 branch I will complain if there
are ANY open debug info regressions at that time.  But they are
months away from cutting their branch.

I think we just have to suck it up and accept that gcc HEAD is
dangerously unstable, and keep filing regression bugs.  It's dangerous
for anybody to ship a compiler out of gcc HEAD!  The gcc 3.3 branch is
healthy and I haven't had trouble with it in the test bed.

Another thing gdb can do is fix some of our tests that fluctuate from
run to run, so that it's easier to tell people "run the gdb test suite
before and after and compare the results".  And contribute to Dan
Kegel's crossgcc project so that it does crossgdb as well.

Michael C