From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12883 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2002 13:28:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12869 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2002 13:28:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iis000.microdata.fr) (194.206.157.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2002 13:28:13 -0000 Received: by IIS000 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3P617K17>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E5@IIS000> From: Bernard Dautrevaux To: 'Joern Rennecke' , Bernard Dautrevaux Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub@superh.com, Jelinek@superh.com, Mark Mitchell , obrien@freebsd.org Subject: RE: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 09:02:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:37 PM > To: Bernard Dautrevaux > Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub@superh.com; > Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; obrien@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > Bernard Dautrevaux wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 10:47 PM > > > To: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > > Cc: Jakub@superh.com; Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; > > > obrien@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. So all that needs is to make an > > > > exception to our earlier commitment that minor releases won't > > > > introduce ABI incompatibility; or make an exception to > our scheduled > > > > development plan. I don't have any strong opinion. > But if we were > > > > > Then what was for now named 3.2 byt GCC *developpers* (a > much smaller > > community than gcc *users*) may have to be renamed 3.3 if there is > > incompatibilities with this 3.2 release (or major change in > features), but > > may just become 3.2.1 otherwise. > > But then you'd have a massive amount of new. possibly > destabilizing code > in 3.2.1 versus 3.2. Users generally expect a x.y.1 release > to me more > stable than the preceding x.y.0 release. So the "current" 3.2 branch should provide a 3.3 "release"... > > And, on the other hand, 3.2 would be rather a disappointment regarding > new features and ports. I expect a 3.2 version with few new features and ports available soon, with due comments on why it was done, be less disapointing than one done later that add new features but also break compatibility. With a 3.2 == new ABI soon 3.3 == new features later split users can switch either now to the new ABI, or later to get both. With the current scheme they just have 3.2 == new ABI and new features but this will only be availabel at the time the 3.3 of the previous scheme will be. It seems that splitting th eevolution may be less destabilizing for users and not too much added work for the developpers (not counting the release manager which obvioulsy will have more work). Bernard -------------------------------------------- Bernard Dautrevaux Microprocess Ingenierie 97 bis, rue de Colombes 92400 COURBEVOIE FRANCE Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80 Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85 e-mail: dautrevaux@microprocess.com -------------------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8162 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2002 18:32:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8094 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2002 18:32:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iis000.microdata.fr) (194.206.157.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2002 18:32:53 -0000 Received: by IIS000 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3P617K17>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E5@IIS000> From: Bernard Dautrevaux To: 'Joern Rennecke' , Bernard Dautrevaux Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub@superh.com, Jelinek@superh.com, Mark Mitchell , obrien@freebsd.org Subject: RE: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 13:03:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20020708130300.eYmzNwpAIJXaxrBU2LmGikgAQNrkOw6D9i5wMH0v4OI@z> > -----Original Message----- > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:37 PM > To: Bernard Dautrevaux > Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub@superh.com; > Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; obrien@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > Bernard Dautrevaux wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 10:47 PM > > > To: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > > Cc: Jakub@superh.com; Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; > > > obrien@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. So all that needs is to make an > > > > exception to our earlier commitment that minor releases won't > > > > introduce ABI incompatibility; or make an exception to > our scheduled > > > > development plan. I don't have any strong opinion. > But if we were > > > > > Then what was for now named 3.2 byt GCC *developpers* (a > much smaller > > community than gcc *users*) may have to be renamed 3.3 if there is > > incompatibilities with this 3.2 release (or major change in > features), but > > may just become 3.2.1 otherwise. > > But then you'd have a massive amount of new. possibly > destabilizing code > in 3.2.1 versus 3.2. Users generally expect a x.y.1 release > to me more > stable than the preceding x.y.0 release. So the "current" 3.2 branch should provide a 3.3 "release"... > > And, on the other hand, 3.2 would be rather a disappointment regarding > new features and ports. I expect a 3.2 version with few new features and ports available soon, with due comments on why it was done, be less disapointing than one done later that add new features but also break compatibility. With a 3.2 == new ABI soon 3.3 == new features later split users can switch either now to the new ABI, or later to get both. With the current scheme they just have 3.2 == new ABI and new features but this will only be availabel at the time the 3.3 of the previous scheme will be. It seems that splitting th eevolution may be less destabilizing for users and not too much added work for the developpers (not counting the release manager which obvioulsy will have more work). Bernard -------------------------------------------- Bernard Dautrevaux Microprocess Ingenierie 97 bis, rue de Colombes 92400 COURBEVOIE FRANCE Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80 Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85 e-mail: dautrevaux@microprocess.com -------------------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25453 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2002 11:43:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25446 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2002 11:43:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iis000.microdata.fr) (194.206.157.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2002 11:43:01 -0000 Received: by IIS000 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3P617K17>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E5@IIS000> From: Bernard Dautrevaux To: 'Joern Rennecke' , Bernard Dautrevaux Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub@superh.com, Jelinek@superh.com, Mark Mitchell , obrien@freebsd.org Subject: RE: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:32:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20020710073200.QbFC47heV_H_22L7XX1rjS3QqC91WpzFvdzxshB4afI@z> > -----Original Message----- > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:37 PM > To: Bernard Dautrevaux > Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub@superh.com; > Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; obrien@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > Bernard Dautrevaux wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 10:47 PM > > > To: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > > Cc: Jakub@superh.com; Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; > > > obrien@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. So all that needs is to make an > > > > exception to our earlier commitment that minor releases won't > > > > introduce ABI incompatibility; or make an exception to > our scheduled > > > > development plan. I don't have any strong opinion. > But if we were > > > > > Then what was for now named 3.2 byt GCC *developpers* (a > much smaller > > community than gcc *users*) may have to be renamed 3.3 if there is > > incompatibilities with this 3.2 release (or major change in > features), but > > may just become 3.2.1 otherwise. > > But then you'd have a massive amount of new. possibly > destabilizing code > in 3.2.1 versus 3.2. Users generally expect a x.y.1 release > to me more > stable than the preceding x.y.0 release. So the "current" 3.2 branch should provide a 3.3 "release"... > > And, on the other hand, 3.2 would be rather a disappointment regarding > new features and ports. I expect a 3.2 version with few new features and ports available soon, with due comments on why it was done, be less disapointing than one done later that add new features but also break compatibility. With a 3.2 == new ABI soon 3.3 == new features later split users can switch either now to the new ABI, or later to get both. With the current scheme they just have 3.2 == new ABI and new features but this will only be availabel at the time the 3.3 of the previous scheme will be. It seems that splitting th eevolution may be less destabilizing for users and not too much added work for the developpers (not counting the release manager which obvioulsy will have more work). Bernard -------------------------------------------- Bernard Dautrevaux Microprocess Ingenierie 97 bis, rue de Colombes 92400 COURBEVOIE FRANCE Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80 Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85 e-mail: dautrevaux@microprocess.com -------------------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27760 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2002 04:20:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27753 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2002 04:20:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iis000.microdata.fr) (194.206.157.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jul 2002 04:20:03 -0000 Received: by IIS000 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3P617K17>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E5@IIS000> From: Bernard Dautrevaux To: 'Joern Rennecke' , Bernard Dautrevaux Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub@superh.com, Jelinek@superh.com, Mark Mitchell , obrien@freebsd.org Subject: RE: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 03:09:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20020712030900.iGhvb7pVsGXII7GhCrZLyzkeSImoc7d-hj8U-rUUfhY@z> > -----Original Message----- > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:37 PM > To: Bernard Dautrevaux > Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub@superh.com; > Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; obrien@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > Bernard Dautrevaux wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 10:47 PM > > > To: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > > Cc: Jakub@superh.com; Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; > > > obrien@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. So all that needs is to make an > > > > exception to our earlier commitment that minor releases won't > > > > introduce ABI incompatibility; or make an exception to > our scheduled > > > > development plan. I don't have any strong opinion. > But if we were > > > > > Then what was for now named 3.2 byt GCC *developpers* (a > much smaller > > community than gcc *users*) may have to be renamed 3.3 if there is > > incompatibilities with this 3.2 release (or major change in > features), but > > may just become 3.2.1 otherwise. > > But then you'd have a massive amount of new. possibly > destabilizing code > in 3.2.1 versus 3.2. Users generally expect a x.y.1 release > to me more > stable than the preceding x.y.0 release. So the "current" 3.2 branch should provide a 3.3 "release"... > > And, on the other hand, 3.2 would be rather a disappointment regarding > new features and ports. I expect a 3.2 version with few new features and ports available soon, with due comments on why it was done, be less disapointing than one done later that add new features but also break compatibility. With a 3.2 == new ABI soon 3.3 == new features later split users can switch either now to the new ABI, or later to get both. With the current scheme they just have 3.2 == new ABI and new features but this will only be availabel at the time the 3.3 of the previous scheme will be. It seems that splitting th eevolution may be less destabilizing for users and not too much added work for the developpers (not counting the release manager which obvioulsy will have more work). Bernard -------------------------------------------- Bernard Dautrevaux Microprocess Ingenierie 97 bis, rue de Colombes 92400 COURBEVOIE FRANCE Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80 Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85 e-mail: dautrevaux@microprocess.com -------------------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25460 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2002 18:22:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25452 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2002 18:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iis000.microdata.fr) (194.206.157.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jul 2002 18:22:45 -0000 Received: by IIS000 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3P617K17>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 15:22:06 +0200 Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E5@IIS000> From: Bernard Dautrevaux To: 'Joern Rennecke' , Bernard Dautrevaux Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub@superh.com, Jelinek@superh.com, Mark Mitchell , obrien@freebsd.org Subject: RE: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:50:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00552.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20020712135000.wLmBREDI7EMh9Xmtwj91_ue2m7tLKphhcbiswtV4emw@z> > -----Original Message----- > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 1:37 PM > To: Bernard Dautrevaux > Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Jakub@superh.com; > Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; obrien@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > Bernard Dautrevaux wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com] > > > Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 10:47 PM > > > To: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > > Cc: Jakub@superh.com; Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell; > > > obrien@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. So all that needs is to make an > > > > exception to our earlier commitment that minor releases won't > > > > introduce ABI incompatibility; or make an exception to > our scheduled > > > > development plan. I don't have any strong opinion. > But if we were > > > > > Then what was for now named 3.2 byt GCC *developpers* (a > much smaller > > community than gcc *users*) may have to be renamed 3.3 if there is > > incompatibilities with this 3.2 release (or major change in > features), but > > may just become 3.2.1 otherwise. > > But then you'd have a massive amount of new. possibly > destabilizing code > in 3.2.1 versus 3.2. Users generally expect a x.y.1 release > to me more > stable than the preceding x.y.0 release. So the "current" 3.2 branch should provide a 3.3 "release"... > > And, on the other hand, 3.2 would be rather a disappointment regarding > new features and ports. I expect a 3.2 version with few new features and ports available soon, with due comments on why it was done, be less disapointing than one done later that add new features but also break compatibility. With a 3.2 == new ABI soon 3.3 == new features later split users can switch either now to the new ABI, or later to get both. With the current scheme they just have 3.2 == new ABI and new features but this will only be availabel at the time the 3.3 of the previous scheme will be. It seems that splitting th eevolution may be less destabilizing for users and not too much added work for the developpers (not counting the release manager which obvioulsy will have more work). Bernard -------------------------------------------- Bernard Dautrevaux Microprocess Ingenierie 97 bis, rue de Colombes 92400 COURBEVOIE FRANCE Tel: +33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80 Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85 e-mail: dautrevaux@microprocess.com --------------------------------------------