From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Tromey To: Joe Buck Cc: mark@codesourcery.com (Mark Mitchell), gcc@gcc.gnu.org (GCC Hackers) Subject: Re: 2.95.3 (was Re: Removal of V2 code) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:55:00 -0000 Message-id: <87d7fnaclj.fsf@creche.cygnus.com> References: <200011220120.RAA19430@racerx.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg01021.html >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Buck writes: Joe> Another issue that some on the SC have expressed worries about is Joe> whether 2.95.3 will cause developers of front ends or back ends Joe> that haven't been fixed to work with the planned 3.0 changes Joe> (e.g. new C++ ABI, GC) to lose their motivation to quickly fix Joe> the problems, meaning that either 3.0 will taken even longer or Joe> then we'll be asked to support two parallel chains of development Joe> going forward (2.95.4, etc). In Java-land we were interested in having 2.95.3 about 6 months ago when the cvs gcc was regularly broken. However we didn't have resources to do a full release :-(. If it came up now I imagine we would just ignore it. We're busy working on getting everything set for gcc 3.0. In some ways this would be bad, because the gcc in Red Hat 7.0 has newer Java support than any hypothetical 2.95.3 would. Tom