This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Time schedule?
I agree that, technically, libg++ -> libstdc++ had a higher impact on
deployed code than the new libstdc++ will. That said, I feel it
deserved its own version release as well but that was back when the
egcs split was still relatively young and not the standard release of
gcc. My biggest caveat, however, is that there simply wasn't as much
C++ code actually deployed then as there is now. The C++ user base
with g++ is probably an order of magnitude larger than it was then and
compliance to the ANSI spec is a major issue that the libstdc++
release will pretty much bring the most egregious variances under
wraps. So... the impact to the development community will be far
larger in this case. A point release will be very confusing to
developers who don't track the compiler's development closely. They're
used to seeing bug fixes and minor improvements for those kind of
things, not expecting to have to relink all deployed apps! Perhaps we
can call it GCC-2000? :-)
regards,
Ben Scherrey
David Starner wrote:
> Major version changes on GCC are reserved for massive changes.
> OTOH, the libstdc++ 2 -> 3 change-over will probably have less
> effect on C++ applications than the libg++ -> libstdc++ change
> over did, and that was 2.7 -> 2.8/egcs.