GCC 4.0 vs. 3.5

[Zack Weinberg]

Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:

> | I only countenanced the 2->3 bump because it was necessary to make
> | clear to users that the forked development effort was over (and
>
> unconvincing: that forked development effort was already made clearly
> over before we released 2.95, and was emphasized by calling the
> released product *GCC* 2.95.

Yah.  That was also wrong.  2.95 should have been 3.0.  Good reasons
were given at the time for not doing that, though (the intent as I
recall was to freeze the C++ ABI at the time of the 3.0 release, which
has obviously not happened - so *at that time* we thought it was an
appropriate thing to do, but in hindsight it wasn't).

zw