Well, gcc-4.0.2-r2 is now in the tree, so go test it and try to break it for me. I got good feedback from people that tested it before I put it in the tree, so it should be better than -r1 was. Let me know via email, irc, bugs.gentoo.org, etc if it sucks. If its working good, I'd also like to hear about that, just don't post it on bugs.gentoo.org, not really the appropriate medium ;)
Also, I've been going through all of the bugs that are assigned/CC'd to toolchain@ and trying to clean them up to get back to a managable number. A lot of them are old stale bugs that no longer are an issue due to newer stable versions of gcc, binutils, etc. If I close your bug and its still valid, just reopen it and I'll look into it closer. If I see that no one reported that its still a problem with the current set of stable packages, and I can't test it quickly, or it looks like it should be fixed, I'm closing it asking for feedback. It doesn't mean that we are ignoring the issue, but obviously a lot of people have not been impacted by it or we'd be hearing stuff everyday :)
Thanks to those of you that responded to my last request for ATs for x86. Its nice to know that people actually read my ramblings on here, and that there are people willing to help. Hopefully we keep getting new people so we can concentrate on improving QA in other ways than just ensuring proper testing for packages before moving them to stable. I have no idea on what we could do yet, but I'm sure people have good, and bad, opinions on that already.