GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4

[David Edelsohn]

>>>>> Tom Tromey writes:

> What I understood is that we would have a mix between a feature-driven
> approach and a date-driven approach.

> For instance, when the 3.3 branch was made we
> could have all agreed: "PCH, the new C++ parser, and the new RA will
> all be in 3.4 -- they are all major new features that we collectively
> consider to be ready.  However, the priority is to stabilize 3.3.  So,
> if a merge of one of these branches goes past the ordinary stage 1
> dates, that's ok".  We can still apply the usual thinking we apply
> right now.  For instance, tree-ssa wasn't ready for 3.3 by the old
> rules, and it wouldn't be by the new ones either.  If it somehow was
> prepared before, say, PCH was merged in, we could still say "no, that
> is a 3.4 feature".

	Thank you very much for your clarification.  This matches what I
was trying to describe.

Thanks, David