public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux@microprocess.com>
To: 'Joern Rennecke' <joern.rennecke@superh.com>,
	Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux@microprocess.com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org,  Jakub@superh.com, Jelinek@superh.com,
	Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
	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	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E5@IIS000> (raw)
Message-ID: <20020712030900.iGhvb7pVsGXII7GhCrZLyzkeSImoc7d-hj8U-rUUfhY@z> (raw)



> -----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
-------------------------------------------- 

             reply	other threads:[~2002-07-12  4:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-07-08  9:02 Bernard Dautrevaux [this message]
2002-07-08 13:03 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-07-10  7:32 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-07-12  3:09 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-07-12 13:50 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-07-10  4:24 Iain McClatchie
2002-07-08 10:09 Ben Woodhead
2002-07-08  3:42 Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-07-08  4:07 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2002-07-08  6:28 ` Joern Rennecke
2002-07-08 13:05 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-07-10  7:33 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-07-12  4:27 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-07-12 13:53 ` Bernard Dautrevaux
2002-07-06 15:47 Joern Rennecke
2002-07-06 16:09 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2002-07-07  8:03   ` Joern Rennecke
2002-07-04  9:55 Andreas Jaeger
2002-07-04 10:23 ` H. J. Lu
2002-07-05 14:17 ` Mark Mitchell
2002-07-05 14:22   ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-07-05 14:28     ` Mark Mitchell
2002-07-05 14:53       ` David O'Brien
2002-07-05 15:08         ` Mark Mitchell
2002-07-06  5:34           ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-07-06  6:40             ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2002-07-06  6:40               ` Jakub Jelinek
2002-07-06  7:20                 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2002-07-06  7:53                   ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-07-06  8:54                     ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2002-07-06 11:04                     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-07-06  7:42                 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-07-06 11:08                   ` Jeff Law
2002-07-06 11:10                     ` Gwenole Beauchesne
2002-07-06  6:19         ` Daniel Egger
2002-07-05 14:46   ` David O'Brien
2002-07-05 15:02     ` H. J. Lu
2002-07-05 15:12       ` David O'Brien
2002-07-05 15:20         ` H. J. Lu
2002-07-05 16:11           ` Stan Shebs
2002-07-05 16:12             ` David Edelsohn
2002-07-05 16:35               ` Stan Shebs
2002-07-05 22:18               ` Geoff Keating
2002-07-07 23:14               ` Mark Mitchell
2002-07-05 15:02     ` Mark Mitchell
2002-07-06  6:28       ` Scott Robert Ladd
2002-07-06  4:56     ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-07-06  6:44       ` Gerald Pfeifer
2002-07-06  7:35         ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-07-06 11:44         ` David O'Brien
2002-07-05 22:35 ` David Edelsohn
2002-07-06  5:40 ` Joseph S. Myers
2002-07-06  6:40   ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2002-07-06  7:49     ` Andreas Jaeger

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E5@IIS000 \
    --to=dautrevaux@microprocess.com \
    --cc=Jakub@superh.com \
    --cc=Jelinek@superh.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gdr@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=joern.rennecke@superh.com \
    --cc=mark@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=obrien@freebsd.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).