This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Criteria for GCC 4.0
Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de> writes:
>> It follows logically from the position that a 4.0 version number would
>> only be justified by actions we would never take.
>
> As usual, you are only looking at things from a C/C++ centric
> point of view. From that POV you are right. From many others
> you are not.
Huh? "Major version number bumps are only justified by changes we
would never actually make" is not a C/C++ centric position. I do not
think we have done anything that would justify a 4.0 version number,
*either* considering only C and C++, or considering all languages.
With specific regard to Fortran, yeah, we're now providing a Fortran
95 compiler, but we *are* providing backward compatibility with
Fortran 77. We may not have implemented all of it yet, but we do
consider failure to compile unregenerate F77 code a bug. If we were
refusing to compile people's grotty old F77 code, that would justify
4.0 -- and that would be just as much of a change we should never
make, as dropping the C compiler.
Someone downthread said that if the major version number never
changes, then it's redundant; that's not true. It is there for
emergencies. Sometimes you have no other choice than to do something
that breaks the world. Now is not one of those times. 2.95->3.0 was,
but only because of earlier mistakes.
zw