Criteria for GCC 4.0

[Andrew Pinski]

On Jun 4, 2004, at 12:48, Stephan T. Lavavej wrote:

> [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).

First that binutils number you mentioned is HJL's binutils and not the 
GNU's
binutils numbering system.  The GNU's binutils is at 2.15.91 which 
means that
will become 2.16 which is unlike gcc where we number our mainline CVS 
at the
next major release number in this case 3.5.0 (or 4.0.0 for those other 
people).


Just clearing up thing,
Andrew Pinski