On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 02:40:51PM -0700, Bucky Katz wrote:
> Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@britannica.bec.de> writes:
> 
> No, I haven't. I'd be perfectly happy with what we have plus a few bug
> fixes, but the Library team wants to always use 'official'
> releases. We don't use the svn tree for GCC on the standalone stuff
> either. We always use an fsf release tarball. (plus maybe some local
> patches for arm that haven't made it into the gcc tree yet.)

I know that most distributions and vendors take snapshots from the
release branch, but it would provide a good start and give somewhat
reasonable changesets compared to e.g. 4.1.2. E.g. you most likely don't
have to worry about most other parts of the toolchain.

> > Hm. I heard a lot of bad things about gcc 4.2, so YMMV.
> 
> do you have any pointers to problems?

E.g. GCC now adds explicit abort() calls for certain pointer casts. That
hit FreeBSD within OpenSSL pretty badly. The memory issues in the
compiler are supposed to be fixed.

Joerg