RE: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?

[Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joern Rennecke [mailto:joern.rennecke@superh.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 10:47 PM
> To: Gabriel Dos Reis; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Cc: Jakub@superh.com; Jelinek@superh.com; Mark Mitchell;
> obrien@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the clarifications.  So all that needs is to make an
> > exception to our earlier commitment that minor releases won't
> > introduce ABI incompatibility; or make an exception to our scheduled
> > development plan.  I don't have any strong opinion.  But if we were
> 
> Well, we could could make a sub-branch from the 3.1 branch for the
> amended ABI, and call it 3.1bis .

Speaking for myself, as a GCC user mainly for this, I feel it a lot clearer
to stick to the "minor releases only fix bugs but are otherwise fully
compatible" scheme; thus it seems to me that to avoid end user brain damage,
if a release with an ABI that we may reasonably expect to be compatible with
upcoming releases (but need to be incompatible with the currently almost
released 3.1.1) then it should be named 3.2.

Then what was for now named 3.2 byt GCC *developpers* (a much smaller
community than gcc *users*) may have to be renamed 3.3 if there is
incompatibilities with this 3.2 release (or major change in features), but
may just become 3.2.1 otherwise. 

In all cases the numbering scheme will then remain coherent and easily
understandable by users.

Just my .02$

        Bernard

--------------------------------------------
Bernard Dautrevaux
Microprocess Ingenierie
97 bis, rue de Colombes
92400 COURBEVOIE
FRANCE
Tel:	+33 (0) 1 47 68 80 80
Fax:	+33 (0) 1 47 88 97 85
e-mail:	dautrevaux@microprocess.com
--------------------------------------------