From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19878 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2002 18:10:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 19871 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 18:10:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO main.gmane.org) (80.91.224.249) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2002 18:10:14 -0000 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17UAIV-0000yz-00 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:10:11 +0200 To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17UAIV-0000yr-00 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:10:11 +0200 Path: not-for-mail From: Charles Wilson Newsgroups: gmane.os.cygwin Subject: Re: Available for test: gcc-3.1.1-2 gcc2-2.95.3-8 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3D331009.1030402@ece.gatech.edu> References: <20020715052013.GA18499@redhat.com> <20020715123651.12383.qmail@web21007.mail.yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cust186.tnt6.atl4.da.uu.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1026756611 3765 67.192.41.186 (15 Jul 2002 18:10:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:10:11 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg01176.txt.bz2 Nicholas Wourms wrote: > Not to presume to tell you what to do, but perhaps it might be prudent to > go ahead and use the gcc-3.2 branch instead. If I read it correctly, they > are planning a gcc-3.2.1 release when the gcc-3.1.2 was supposed to be > released (and the webpage says GCC 3.1.2 release [Sep 15 2002]). You're misreading the announement. Now, the "gcc-3.2" release will be coming from 3.1 codebase + the ABI change; nothing more. This is because the 3.2 branch has already finished its "stage 1" development, where destabilizing code is added. Therefore, what is currently known as the "gcc-3.2" branch is *unstable* and can't be released without stage 2 (two months of stabilization and bugfix) and stage 3 (two months of regression testing). So, they are simply going to rename the "gcc-3.2" branch to "gcc-3.3". There may be two sub-branches from the current 3.1 codebase: 1) what will become the new "stable" 3.2 codebase (== today's 3.1.1 + ABI changes) 2) a continuing 3.1 branch WITHOUT the ABI changes (for the poor Mac Jaguar (OS 10.2) people, who have already stabilized on 3.1 with the "bad" ABI) > I > suppose it depends on how you look at it, but skipping to gcc-3.2 might > save some headaches in regards to YA C++ ABI change. That is, we don't want to jump to "3.2" -- as it is known today. After the 3.2-->3.3; 3.1.2 --> 3.2 rename, THEN we'll want to jump to 3.2. But not until then -- because the 3.2-->3.3 codebase will be / is unstable. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/