This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
PATCH: index.html and GCC 2.96, gcc-2.96.html
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: PATCH: index.html and GCC 2.96, gcc-2.96.html
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 15:45:49 +0200 (CEST)
Obviously we should also mention the GCC 2.96 statement on our main
page.
Installed.
Gerald
Index: index.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/index.html,v
retrieving revision 1.217
diff -r1.217 index.html
96,97c96,98
< <a href="gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95.2.html">GCC 2.95.2</a> is the current release.
< <hr>
---
> <a href="gcc-2.95/gcc-2.95.2.html">GCC 2.95.2</a> is the current release;
> <a href="gcc-2.96.html">GCC 2.96</A> and 2.97 are development snapshots.
> </p>
98a100
> <hr>
109a112,120
>
> <dt><b>October 6, 2000</b></dt>
> <dd>
> We would like to point out that GCC 2.96 is not a formal GCC release nor
> will there ever be such a release. Rather, GCC 2.96 has been the code-
> name for our development branch that will eventually become GCC 3.0.
> <small><a href="gcc-2.96.html">More...</a></small>
> </dd>
>
--- /dev/null Sat Oct 7 15:36:26 2000
+++ gcc-2.96.html Sat Oct 7 15:27:56 2000
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+<html>
+
+<head>
+<title>GCC 2.96</title>
+</head>
+
+<body>
+
+<h1>GCC 2.96</h1>
+
+<p>October 6th, 2000</p>
+
+<p>It has come to our attention that some GNU/Linux distributions are
+currently shipping with ``GCC 2.96''.</p>
+
+<p>We would like to point out that GCC 2.96 is not a formal GCC release nor
+will there ever be such a release. Rather, GCC 2.96 has been the code-
+name for our development branch that will eventually become GCC 3.0.</p>
+
+<p>Current snapshots of GCC, and any version labeled 2.96, produce object
+files that are not compatible with those produced by either GCC 2.95.2 or
+the forthcoming GCC 3.0. Therefore, programs built with these snapshots
+will not be compatible with any official GCC release. Actually, C and
+Fortran code will probably be compatible, but code in other languages,
+most notably C++ due to incompatibilities in symbol encoding (``mangling''),
+the standard library and the application binary interface (ABI), is likely
+to fail in some way. Static linking against C++ libraries may make a
+binary more portable, at the cost of increasing file size and memory use.</p>
+
+<p>To avoid any confusion, we have bumped the version of our current
+development branch to GCC 2.97.</p>
+
+<p>Please note that both GCC 2.96 and 2.97 are development versions; we
+do not recommend using them for production purposes. Binaries built
+using any version of GCC 2.96 or 2.97 will not be portable to systems
+based on one of our regular releases.</p>
+
+<p>If you encounter a bug in a compiler labeled 2.96, we suggest you
+contact whoever supplied the compiler as we can not support 2.96
+versions that were not issued by the GCC team.</p>
+
+<p>Please see
+<a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/snapshots.html">http://gcc.gnu.org/snapshots.html</a>
+if you want to use our latest snapshots. We suggest you use 2.95.2 if you
+are uncertain.</p>
+
+<p><a href="steering.html">The GCC Steering Committee</a></p>
+
+</body>
+</html>
+