This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 2.98 release better approach?
- To: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>
- Subject: Re: gcc 2.98 release better approach?
- From: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 20:47:55 +0200
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
- References: <200010152216.PAA80507@bromo.med.uc.edu>
Jack Howarth wrote:
> I wanted to just make a suggestion. Given that a rather
> large vendor has stirred the pot on this by releasing a cvs
> version of gcc perhaps a change in plan might help. Rather
> than going straight to gcc 3.0 without official releases
> wouldn't it make more sense to branch a 2.98 release just
> before the v3.0 libstdc++ was switched on in the gcc cvs?
With all due respect - No. This has been brought up on the Steering
Committee's mailing list too, and I dead set against it.
There are basically two reasons for it, one technical, one political.
1. We (i.e. the SC) set out to produce GCC 3.0 about a year ago.
The goal was to break C++ binary compatibility once again -
and *only* once. We cannot stop Red Hat from issuing
a half-way compiler (although we would have tried had they
asked us), but we are *not* going to make that mistake ourselves.
2. We cannot just issue an intermediate release because one
GNU/Linux distributor chose to do so. Not only would we piss
off all other distributors (not to mention the *BSD crowd) for
bowing to this one vendor, but GCC is not "just" a GNU/Linux/*BSD
compiler ... Lots of people use it on various Unices and
MS Window systems (either under cygwin or mingw).
Hope this clears things up.
Cheers,
--
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)