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 libstdc++, I guess. > Which is not on the cards for the foreseeable future. The suggested > attributes to allow old and new libstdc++ ABIs to coexist, and > dropping the "experimental" rider from C++11 mode would warrant a > major version bump IMHO. 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.
