From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25541 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2002 18:22:47 -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 25461 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2002 18:22:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO iis000.microdata.fr) (194.206.157.151) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jul 2002 18:22:46 -0000 Received: by IIS000 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3P617KCA>; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:37:03 +0200 Message-ID: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E4@IIS000> From: Bernard Dautrevaux To: 'Joern Rennecke' , 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? Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:53:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00553.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20020712135300.91ffCOCHTR8XE9VCAaI68TdOsDSsNmZrDll2X6HQ3cU@z> > -----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 > > Well, we could could make a sub-branch from the 3.1 branch for the > amended ABI, and call it 3.1bis . Speaking for myself, as a GCC user mainly for this, I feel it a lot clearer to stick to the "minor releases only fix bugs but are otherwise fully compatible" scheme; thus it seems to me that to avoid end user brain damage, if a release with an ABI that we may reasonably expect to be compatible with upcoming releases (but need to be incompatible with the currently almost released 3.1.1) then it should be named 3.2. 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. In all cases the numbering scheme will then remain coherent and easily understandable by users. Just my .02$ 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 --------------------------------------------