From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31876 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2009 11:53:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 31868 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2009 11:53:15 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.150) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:53:09 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 13so467024eye.46 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.211.19.17 with SMTP id w17mr1678620ebi.92.1253447587063; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm9566997eyz.26.2009.09.20.04.53.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4AB61AFB.9060903@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 11:53:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: Dave Korn , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2009-09-19) References: <4AB58A42.7030801@gmail.com> <4AB61783.8070302@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 Richard Guenther wrote: > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Dave Korn wrote: >> BTW, why don't we call this more-flexible-stage-3 "stage 2" any more? It >> sounds a lot like the way that's still described on develop.html. > > Because "New functionality may not be introduced during this period." is > still true for this stage 3 and "support for a new language construct > might be added in a front-end" is also not wanted. Ah, thanks. I missed the discussion when stage 2 fell out of use, it would be nice if someone who was there at the time added a note to develop.html - is it an ad-hoc thing that we've just done for a couple of releases because it made sense at the time or was there an SC decision to permanently modify the development plan? cheers, DaveK