Available for test: gcc-3.1.1-2 gcc2-2.95.3-8

[Charles Wilson]

Nicholas Wourms wrote:

> Not to presume to tell you what to do, but perhaps it might be prudent to
> go ahead and use the gcc-3.2 branch instead.  If I read it correctly, they
> are planning a gcc-3.2.1 release when the gcc-3.1.2 was supposed to be
> released (and the webpage says GCC 3.1.2 release [Sep 15 2002]).


You're misreading the announement.  Now, the "gcc-3.2" release will be 
coming from 3.1 codebase + the ABI change; nothing more.  This is 
because the 3.2 branch has already finished its "stage 1" development, 
where destabilizing code is added.

Therefore, what is currently known as the "gcc-3.2" branch is *unstable* 
and can't be released without stage 2 (two months of stabilization and 
bugfix) and stage 3 (two months of regression testing).

So, they are simply going to rename the "gcc-3.2" branch to "gcc-3.3". 
There may be two sub-branches from the current 3.1 codebase:
   1) what will become the new "stable" 3.2 codebase (== today's 3.1.1 + 
ABI changes)
   2) a continuing 3.1 branch WITHOUT the ABI changes (for the poor Mac 
Jaguar (OS 10.2) people, who have already stabilized on 3.1 with the 
"bad" ABI)

>  I
> suppose it depends on how you look at it, but skipping to gcc-3.2 might
> save some headaches in regards to YA C++ ABI change.  


That is, we don't want to jump to "3.2" -- as it is known today.  After 
the 3.2-->3.3; 3.1.2 --> 3.2 rename, THEN we'll want to jump to 3.2. 
But not until then -- because the 3.2-->3.3 codebase will be / is unstable.

--Chuck




--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/