This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC Release Status (2003-08-22)
Gerald Pfeifer <email@example.com> writes:
| I hope that this time we'll be able to release relatively quickly after
| the creation of the release branch
It is my understanding that GCC-3.4 is supposed to be goal-driven, and not
date-driven; in particular, most of issues like compile-time
performance and other oddities have to be addressed before 3.4 goes
out. Did that change?
| (considering how much time you alone
| must have spent in testing and applying patches to both mainline and the
| 3.3-branch before the release of GCC 3.3), which would lead to a projected
| release date in late December or early January. Or is that too ambitious?
| > I don't mind moving up the date if everyone is comfortable with that.
| Perhaps October 4th, to have (no more than) three months in stage 2 after
| three months in stage 1?
I believe October 15 is good; October 4 is too short.
I still havfe large part of the name lookup speedup and unification to
complete -- and name lookup does account for compile-time regression.
We have lots of PRs related to name lookup oddities (primarily because
we have so many different pieces of codes, each trying to implement
its own view of what name lookup should be).
I don't know about Mark feels about it, but if he thinks he would not
have enough time to conduct 3.3.x and 3.4 releases in parallel, I
would be happy to volunteer again to serve as RM for 3.3.x, so that he
can foucs on 3.4.
| (Given that GCC 3.4 will be a "we break nearly all of your (non-ISO) C++
| programs" release, we may want to push it out the door relatively quickly
I'm skeptical about that approach. I believe that if GCC-3.4 is
rock-solid enough and does good jobs, then people will embrass it.
However, if it is released too quickly and we did not have enough time
to fix outstanding issues, then people will just ignore it and we
would miss audiance there.
After all, MS's 7.1 compiler broke many (non-ISO) things, but it was
embrassed because, in many facets, it outperforms GCC :-(
[see compiler "auditing" on Boost website, GCC is lagging behind :-(]
| while keeping the 3.3-branch active a bit longer than usual to give users
| a bit more time fixing their programs. Just a thought, thoug...)