This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?
- From: Joern Rennecke <joern dot rennecke at superh dot com>
- To: Bernard Dautrevaux <Dautrevaux at microprocess dot com>
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jakub at superh dot com, Jelinek at superh dot com, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, obrien at freebsd dot org
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 12:37:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?
- Organization: SuperH UK Ltd.
- References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E4@IIS000>
Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>
> > -----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
> >
> 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.
But then you'd have a massive amount of new. possibly destabilizing code
in 3.2.1 versus 3.2. Users generally expect a x.y.1 release to me more
stable than the preceding x.y.0 release.
And, on the other hand, 3.2 would be rather a disappointment regarding
new features and ports.
--
--------------------------
SuperH
2430 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4AQ
T:+44 1454 462330