GCC version bikeshedding
Hi! So, what versioning scheme have we actually agreed on, before I change it in wwwdocs? Is that 5.0.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.0.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 5.1.0 in ~ April 2016, or 5.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 6.0 in ~ April 2016? The only thing I understood was that we don't want 4.10, but for the rest various people expressed different preferences and then it was presented as agreement on 5.0, which applies to both of the above. It is not a big deal either way of course. Jakub
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
On July 20, 2014 5:55:06 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >Hi! > >So, what versioning scheme have we actually agreed on, before I change >it in >wwwdocs? Is that >5.0.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.0.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 5.1.0 in ~ April >2016, >or >5.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 6.0 in ~ April 2016? >The only thing I understood was that we don't want 4.10, but for the >rest >various people expressed different preferences and then it was >presented as >agreement on 5.0, which applies to both of the above. > >It is not a big deal either way of course. I understood we agreed on 5.0 and further 5.1, 5.2 releases from the branch and 6.0 a year later. With unspecified uses for the patch level number (so leave it at zero). Richard. > Jakub
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 05:59:08PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > >So, what versioning scheme have we actually agreed on, before I change > >it in > >wwwdocs? Is that > >5.0.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.0.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 5.1.0 in ~ April > >2016, > >or > >5.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 6.0 in ~ April 2016? > >The only thing I understood was that we don't want 4.10, but for the > >rest > >various people expressed different preferences and then it was > >presented as > >agreement on 5.0, which applies to both of the above. > > > >It is not a big deal either way of course. > > I understood we agreed on 5.0 and further 5.1, 5.2 releases from the > branch and 6.0 a year later. With unspecified uses for the patch level > number (so leave it at zero). Ian/Jason, is that your understanding too? In any case, we should mention it on gcc.gnu.org/index.html, in develop.html and perhaps a few other spots. Jakub
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
On 20/07/14 17:59, Richard Biener wrote: On July 20, 2014 5:55:06 PM GMT+01:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote: Hi! So, what versioning scheme have we actually agreed on, before I change it in wwwdocs? Is that 5.0.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.0.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 5.1.0 in ~ April 2016, or 5.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 6.0 in ~ April 2016? The only thing I understood was that we don't want 4.10, but for the rest various people expressed different preferences and then it was presented as agreement on 5.0, which applies to both of the above. It is not a big deal either way of course. I understood we agreed on 5.0 and further 5.1, 5.2 releases from the branch and 6.0 a year later. With unspecified uses for the patch level number (so leave it at zero). That's what I understood as well. Someone mentioned to leave the patch level number to the distros to use which sounded like a good idea. Paulo Matos Richard. Jakub
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
On Jul 20, 2014, at 5:55 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > So, what versioning scheme have we actually agreed on, before I change it in > wwwdocs? Is that > 5.0.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.0.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 5.1.0 in ~ April 2016, > or > 5.0 in ~ April 2015, 5.1 in ~ June-July 2015 and 6.0 in ~ April 2016? > The only thing I understood was that we don't want 4.10, but for the rest > various people expressed different preferences and then it was presented as > agreement on 5.0, which applies to both of the above. Can we use the switch to 5.0, a supposedly stable C++11 ABI etc, also as an excuse to finally configure for --with-sse2 by default for 32-bit x86? Maybe then we can finally retire PR 323 and its dozens of duplicates... -Geert
Re: GCC version bikeshedding
Paulo Matos writes: > > That's what I understood as well. Someone mentioned to leave the patch > level number to the distros to use which sounded like a good idea. Sounds like a bad idea, as then there would be non unique gcc versions. redhat gcc 5.0.2 potentially being completely different from suse gcc 5.0.2 -Andi
gcc-4.10-20140720 is now available
Snapshot gcc-4.10-20140720 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.10-20140720/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 4.10 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk revision 212879 You'll find: gcc-4.10-20140720.tar.bz2Complete GCC MD5=def7351bb0877c031e6ee278aff72381 SHA1=784eaa7eaa9a90ac76000cd0e309feaed186a64f Diffs from 4.10-20140713 are available in the diffs/ subdirectory. When a particular snapshot is ready for public consumption the LATEST-4.10 link is updated and a message is sent to the gcc list. Please do not use a snapshot before it has been announced that way.
