This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Release Delay
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: GCC Release Delay
- From: Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 19:44:36 +0200
- CC: Toon Moene <moene at knmi dot nl>, "jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Organization: Moene Computational Physics, Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
- References: <299460000.992877971@gandalf.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > However, the fact that something is "experimental", "prerelease" or
> > "release" should be dealt with in one, single, version file.
> At the very least, updating gcc_release to handle more files
> that version.c. At best, it seems to me that we could put all of these
> versions in lockstep.
That would be very nice.
> It makes sense for a library that we don't change (i.e., GNU readline,
> if we used it) to have its own version number. But there's no real
> reason for our Fortran runtime, Fortran compiler, C compiler, etc. to
> have different version numbers. Can't we just make them all `3.0.1'
> for the next release?
Well, I'm not rabidly opposed to that idea, but I have to explain then -
somewhere, possibly at a well-marked spot in the Fortran documentation -
why we changed the version number (or removed it altogether) of the
Frontend without offering Cray pointers, DEC structures, etc, ...
OTOH, it would probably cause less upheaval than a Frontend that
proclaims itself to be "(experimental)" ;-)
--
Toon Moene - mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)