Re: gcc-3.2 C++ ABI and packaging c++ libraries [was Re: [ITP]: Berkeley DB v3.1]

["Gareth Pearce" <tilps at hotmail dot com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicholas Wourms" <nwourms@netscape.net>
To: <cygwin-apps@cygwin.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 12:04 AM
Subject: Re: gcc-3.2 C++ ABI and packaging c++ libraries [was Re: [ITP]:
Berkeley DB v3.1]


> Gareth Pearce wrote:
>
> >
> >>B)If possible, I'd like to know what the tentative plan might be for the
> >>gcc-3.x release.  Are we going to stick with gcc-3.1.1 for awhile or are
> >>we going to dive into gcc-3.2?  In either case, roughly when would you
> >>like to have the new gcc go gold?
> >>
> >'read the message list archives' *snicker*
> >
> I don't know what's so damned funny, because he never *really* stated
> his intentions.  I don't need to read the archives, because I assure you
> I have been following the discussion.  He made a reference to the gcc
> announcment and said "maybe we should wait", but that doesn't say much
> to me.  How long are we going to wait?  Are we going to go with the
> initial release of gcc-3.2 or will we wait until gcc-3.2.1?  Further
> discussion was somewhat debateble, but certainly it was not clear or
> concise on where he stands.  Perhaps the message he stated this in never
> got delivered to my mailbox...

*snicker*
as usual ... sarcasm use on the only email list in which sarcasm is more
common then cabbages with hens teeth growing on them, fails.
>
> >
> >I am pretty sure that decision looked pretty strong on Chris waiting for
the
> >branch re-naming/abi fix checkin and releasing 3.2 instead of 3.1.1 ever
> >going past test.  Should be sometime next week hopefully ... since the
gcc
> >types said they were going to do the branch renaming as soon as 3.1.1 was
> >out ... and that is RSN. (ummm ofcourse i might of missed italready , I
> >delete most of the gcc mail without reading it)
> >
> Even you are expressing some reservation on saying what will happen, so
> again, my point was to recieve further clarification from management so
> that I can make "informed" decisions regarding my packages.

*chuckle* - You asked for Tentative plans ... and yet want definite answers.
Ofcourse to me, it doesnt seem tentative at all, my 'pretty sure' was merely
memory of the original discussion being a bit flaky.
Then again I also follow the gcc list somewhat and know that
a) - changing ABI is extreme pain - changing it twice is twice the pain.
b) - gcc 3.2 is rsn (so easily worth the wait)
c) - gcc 3.1 branch is recieveing no further development, so staying with
that is a dead end. (or requires Chris to backport 3.2 patches, wherever
they conflict with the new ABI code changes)
d) - gcc 3.2 release will be 3.1.1 with 'Only' abi changes.
I should of included this in my last email ... too late now though...

Ofcourse its all moot now, since Chris has gone and confirmed everything
to the last detail.

Gareth.