Criteria for GCC 4.0

[Stephan T. Lavavej]

[Zack Weinberg]
> I now think the 2.95->3.0 version number bump was
> *only* justified in order to extract ourselves from the
> corner we'd painted ourselves into because EGCS internally
> considered itself to be 2.9[01].

3.0 was correctly named, as it marked when g++ stopped sucking.

Version number inflation is the natural order of things.  Better gcc 4.0
than binutils 2.15.91.0.1 (GAH).

As long as it's not "GCC 4.0 Optimized".

Stephan T. Lavavej