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: Ada policy


zack@codesourcery.com (Zack Weinberg)  wrote on 30.08.04 in <87acwc3qq6.fsf@codesourcery.com>:

> That is a little different from 'a deliberate policy of breaking
> source compatibility between releases', I admit.  I think that a
> reasonable person could reach that conclusion too, but only having
> read messages which I remember reading but cannot presently find in
> the archives.

Hmm. I certainly seem to remember reading those messages, too. Not that it  
were a plan to always break compatibility, but that incompatible features  
were pretty much always introduced and they wanted to use them in the  
compiler, which then produced that incompatibility; and as long as the  
previous version was still compatible, that was not considered a problem.

And that in fact only-the-previous-version had been true for a large  
number of versions.

Hmm ... this seems relevant:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-03/msg01197.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-03/msg01245.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-03/msg01268.html

... and probably more in that thread.

It seems completely obvious from that thread that ACT's ideas of how much  
old version bootstrap compatibility was worth, was vastly different from  
either the FSF's, or the one described in the current thread (that is,  
lots of old versions used to check exactly that internally).

Furthermore, there's mention of a plan to document which versions work for  
3.1 or the next version. We have 3.4 out, and now it seems we finally get  
such a list ...

(I wonder if I should also mention the "either take our contributions the  
way they are, or we'll take our toys and go home" thing ...)

MfG Kai


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