David O'Brien wrote:
> > Because rather than leaving it alone for a while, they are already
> > planning a 3.3.  8-).
> >
> > And comments on this list to that effect.
> I don't follow.  The GCC group branches previous to a release and makes
> an initial + point releases from it.

I thought it was the general consensus that the 3.1 version of
the compiler was broken, and generated bad code, and that the 3.2
compiler had a lot of these problems corrected, but destroyed
binary compatability with 3.1.

I guess the fear is that, if they are willing to destroy binary
compatability between point releases, with another point release
in the wings, it would be risky to pick the point release one
behind to standardise upon.

It was my understanding that FreeBSD 5.0 release was not going
to be GCC 3.3 (because GCC 3.3 would not be released in time for
FreeBSD to not be "pulling a RedHat" if they shipped a beta and
called it 3.3) , might be GCC 3.2, and was currently down-rev
from there.

> How is this different from FreeBSD?
> (other than they branch much before the .0 release and we don't).

FreeBSD has been been branched for 18 months before the 5.0 release;
what are you talking about?!?  There's not much more "much" than
that, in the entire history of GCC.

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to