This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0

From: Phil Edwards <phil at codesourcery dot com>
To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:38:21 -0400
Subject: Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
References: <4140A3D3.9@bothner.com> <87d60vmg08.fsf@codesourcery.com> <m3vfenqf5g.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net> <4140D5FE.2010107@bothner.com>

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 03:15:26PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> 
> It's been suggested that 5.0 might be appropriate when we have
> a really stable C++ ABI, including libstdc++ header files.  You
> could make same condition for the in-progress Java "binary
> compatible" ABI.

Even I would agree with bumping the major number at those points.  I was
kinda hoping we'd wait for the former for 4.0, but enh.  Integers are cheap.

-- 
AI.cpp:33241: warning: You wrote 'neurons.merge(solution1, solution2)",
AI.cpp:33241: you probably MEANT "neurons->merge(solution1, solution2)",
AI.cpp:33241: but there is a MUCH better way to implement this whole
AI.cpp:33241: function; doing that instead.

References:
- SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  - From: Per Bothner
- Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  - From: Per Bothner

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]