This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:29:44 +0100
- Subject: Re: GCC version bikeshedding
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140720165506 dot GT3003 at laptop dot redhat dot com> <7564e4f5-8030-4a23-8b0b-b1262265a349 at email dot android dot com>
Richard Biener <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On July 20, 2014 5:55:06 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> wrote:
>>So, what versioning scheme have we actually agreed on, before I change
>>wwwdocs? Is that
>>5.0.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.0.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 5.1.0 in ~ April
>>5.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 6.0 in ~ April 2016?
>>The only thing I understood was that we don't want 4.10, but for the
>>various people expressed different preferences and then it was
>>agreement on 5.0, which applies to both of the above.
>>It is not a big deal either way of course.
> I understood we agreed on 5.0 and further 5.1, 5.2 releases from the
> branch and 6.0 a year later. With unspecified uses for the patch level
> number (so leave it at zero).
Was this a Cauldron thing? Could you summarise it for the people who
weren't there? I don't strongly object, but it seems like unnecessary
Does that mean that __GNUC_MINOR__ is going to become the patchlevel?
Or is __GNUC_MINOR__ going to be 0, with 5.x.y setting __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__
to x? If the latter, what happens to y?