Marketing loves high numbers after all!
If you truly think this way, we're going to have to revoke your hacker's
license ;-)
DJ Delorie schrieb:
Ian Lance Taylor writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version number.
Changing the implementation
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that
On 11/11/2012 04:47 AM, NightStrike wrote:
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/10/2012 04:45 AM, NightStrike wrote:
Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this.
IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the
On 11/10/2012 04:45 AM, NightStrike wrote:
Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this.
IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the
manual correctly, it's because c99 isn't finished yet. gcc 5.0 should
have a complete c99.
Should in what sense?
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, NightStrike wrote:
Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this.
IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the
manual correctly, it's because c99 isn't finished yet. gcc 5.0 should
have a complete c99.
The reason gnu99 is not
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/10/2012 04:45 AM, NightStrike wrote:
Making c99 the default for gcc would be a great candidate for this.
IIUC, gcc without -std=c99 will compile for c89. And if I read the
manual correctly, it's because c99 isn't
Il 06/11/2012 03:43, DJ Delorie ha scritto:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 November 2012 09:16, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to
major user-visible changes.
Or a new ABI for
On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to
major user-visible changes.
I think dropping reload would quality, particularly if there are other
major user visible changes going on. For example, significant
improvements in
On 6 November 2012 09:16, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 11/06/2012 07:06 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
I tend to agree that major version number bumps ought to be tied to
major user-visible changes.
It wasn't for GCC 4.0, but I'm not suggesting it should be done again.
The new C++ parser and ABI in GCC 3.4
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in
single digits!
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-03/msg01103.html)
I suppose
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get there while the X in 4.X is still in
single
On 2012-11-05 16:17 , Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Steven Bosscher stevenb@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 04:34:15 +, Dave Korn wrote:
Say, why don't we reserve GCC 5.0 for the first version that gets rid of
reload? Then let's see if we can get
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version number.
Typically a major version bump is
On 11/05/2012 07:43 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com writes:
Also the fact that GCC is now written in C++ seems to me to be
deserving of a bump to 5.0.
I see no reason why an internal design change that has no user visible
effects should have any impact on the version
17 matches
Mail list logo
