Release numbering

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Per Bothner wrote:

> It doesn't seem anyone really cares much about caret diagnostics.
> At least I haven't seen a lot of help with --enable-mapped-location.

After all, GCC developers are experts at working out what on a source line 
GCC's diagnostics are referring to, making caret diagnostics excess 
verbosity much of the time.

I'd see --enable-mapped-location as of clear importance in compile-time 
performance (including getting rid of TREE_COMPLEXITY as you noted in 
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01798.html>) and general 
compiler cleanliness, as much for value in facilitating new features such 
as caret diagnostics.

I'd like to get rid of TREE_COMPLEXITY, clean up and speed up the 
compiler, etc.; the --enable-mapped-location changes to facilitate it just 
seemed too large and far off from the patch I was doing at the time to 
remove TREE_COMPLEXITY for C and C++ to go and start doing this work on 
the Java front end 
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-07/msg01879.html>.  So it was 
natural to presume that this work will probably be done better and quicker 
by those with more familiarity with the relevant parts of the compiler, 
and instead go on to projects on parts of the compiler with which I have 
greater familiarity, with an eye there too to possible performance and 
cleanliness improvements involved in the changes, and to such changes that 
might be possible afterwards consequentially, with a hope but no 
particular expectation of being able to make such subsequent improvements.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
  http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)