This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: future versions
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Jack Howarth <howarth dot at dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus at trippelsdorf dot de>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 17:57:11 +0000
- Subject: Re: future versions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJMcOU_d0asudB6ULzSKeBB+3LOHQOVD5VkP-3WHUgZdrsLC+w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150321054546 dot GA342 at x4> <CAJMcOU9-bHLrYzL1CBAhNAq+WLdupSE80npFw3ZrrHNOJ5arMw at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150321172759 dot GB342 at x4> <CAJMcOU92fvC3NDaWbzor4v=TcBWu8L7cYjy=RMuRbXWYfFwkMw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 22 March 2015 at 17:28, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Is this the policy going forward for the 6.0 release as well?
Yes, as it says on that webpage.
> If it is
> being done just to avoid the stigma of a .0 release, it really smacks
> of being too cute by half.
That's not the reason, there's a rationale on the webpage too.
If someone says they have 4.9.0 it could be the final release or a
trunk build from 9 months earlier, which would be a very different
compiler. Similarly, 4.9.1 would be the final release or a build on
the branch from the day after 4.9.0 was released.
With the new scheme the __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ component is different for
final releases and snapshots.