This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
- From: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, "jbuck at synopsys dot com" <jbuck at synopsys dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:02:23 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
>>>>> Tom Tromey writes:
> What I understood is that we would have a mix between a feature-driven
> approach and a date-driven approach.
> For instance, when the 3.3 branch was made we
> could have all agreed: "PCH, the new C++ parser, and the new RA will
> all be in 3.4 -- they are all major new features that we collectively
> consider to be ready. However, the priority is to stabilize 3.3. So,
> if a merge of one of these branches goes past the ordinary stage 1
> dates, that's ok". We can still apply the usual thinking we apply
> right now. For instance, tree-ssa wasn't ready for 3.3 by the old
> rules, and it wouldn't be by the new ones either. If it somehow was
> prepared before, say, PCH was merged in, we could still say "no, that
> is a 3.4 feature".
Thank you very much for your clarification. This matches what I
was trying to describe.
Thanks, David