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: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 10:16:06 +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> <5098A8FB.2050707@redhat.com>

On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:

I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to
major user-visible changes.

I think dropping reload would quality, particularly if there are other
major user visible changes going on.  For example, significant
improvements in modularity allowing for easier plugin development, major
improvements in static & dynamic analysis capabilities, etc.

Or a new ABI for libstdc++, I guess.

--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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
- Re: Time for GCC 5.0? (TIC)
  - From: Jeff Law

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