From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19418 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2009 14:50:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 19409 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Sep 2009 14:50:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:50:17 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5678E8655F; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:50:15 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:50:00 -0000 From: Richard Guenther To: Jason Merrill Cc: Dave Korn , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 4.5 Status Report (2009-09-19) In-Reply-To: <4ABB85BD.5070307@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <4AB58A42.7030801@gmail.com> <4AB61783.8070302@gmail.com> <4AB61AFB.9060903@gmail.com> <4ABB85BD.5070307@redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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/msg00509.txt.bz2 On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Jason Merrill wrote: > On 09/20/2009 08:07 AM, Dave Korn wrote: > > 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 > > As did I. I've been figuring that a couple of C++0x bits (lambdas, delegating > constructors) could go in during stage 2; but if there's no stage 2 I guess > I'll go ahead and merge the lambda branch during stage 1 rather than try to > nail down all the corner cases first. That is what I would indeed prefer. Stage 3 is ok for general bugfixes, which includes nailing down corner cases. Thanks, Richard.