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: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)

From: Georg-Johann Lay <avr at gjlay dot de>
To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 12:11:28 +0100
Subject: Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)
References: <CABu31nPnuk57bnuVswvtUA667iHZqs7i1s_fFo0yZfRMUX+HDA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKOQZ8xk_1BUq8j5uK7eVpWnprx_ebis8uN1sOU6jr247jF7LA@mail.gmail.com> <xnobjb30z6.fsf@greed.delorie.com>

DJ Delorie schrieb:

Ian Lance Taylor writes:

Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.


I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version number.

Changing the implementation language is not an internal change. GCC is a source project. Anyone who takes the sources and who wants to roll a distribution or just wants to compile GCC, will need a C++ compiler now.

Thus, it's a major change for these "first-level" users.

Johann

Typically a major version bump is reserved for either massive new
functionality or a break with backwards compatibility.

References:
- Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)
  - From: DJ Delorie

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