From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13478 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2002 12:34:31 -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 13466 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 12:34:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO merlin.nerim.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 12:34:27 -0000 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by merlin.nerim.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id g66CWtE07929; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:32:55 +0200 To: Mark Mitchell Cc: "obrien@freebsd.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? References: <18910000.1025898677@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <19510000.1025899870@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020705143353.D89951@dragon.nuxi.com> <26670000.1025905035@gandalf.codesourcery.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Andreas Jaeger's message of "Sat, 06 Jul 2002 07:35:46 +0200" Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 06:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00263.txt.bz2 Andreas Jaeger writes: | > Because our goal is to produce minor releases that fix critical bugs. | > | > Adding in new, not nearly as well-tested ABI changes, one week for a | > release is simply not going to happen. | | What about postponing this change for 3.1.2 - That would make an ABI incompatibility in minor releases. That is worst than incompatibility between major releases. | with possible renaming | it to 3.2.2 - with the goal to be compatible to GCC mainline? I raise the same objection. Minor releases should not introduce ABI incompatibilities. They should just feature non-ABI breaking bug fixes. -- Gaby