RE: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?

["Scott Robert Ladd" <scott@coyotegulch.com>]

Perhaps I'm a bit out-of-line by dropping into this debate, but I see some
nasty trends that are "bad" for the entire free software movement.

MM> Because our goal is to produce minor releases
MM> that fix critical bugs.

How does the above statement play with something Mark Mitchell said in an
earlier post:

MM> Yes, the implementation had some bugs.  It was
MM> also the case that the ABI specification had some
MM> bugs/omissions/unclarities.

If the ABI specification is buggy, shouldn't such "bugs" be fixed in an
interim release, i.e., 3.1.1?

The ABI is fundamental, and if changes must be made, sooner is far better
than later.

MM> It's not the job of the FSF maintainers to do this.

I submit that this may be true in an absolute sense, but such an attitude
fails to recognize the importance of gcc. gcc is the foundation of free and
open software; if that foundation keeps shifting, it increases risk and
stress for those building upon it.

MM> Adding in new, not nearly as well-tested ABI changes,
MM> one week for a release is simply not going to happen.

The perhaps the release schedule is unrealistic?

..Scott
(Who'd love to help with gcc if he could figure out where to stick his
nose...)

Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions,  http://www.coyotegulch.com
No ads -- just very free (and somewhat unusual) code.