Re: RFH: GPLv3
I rarely de-lurk, but: It seems to have been suggested that (with at least some new patches being GPLv2 or later in some lawful way acceptable to FSF): 0. Bump no version numbers to reflect license changes. It seems to me that there have been proposed (with all new patches being GPLv3 or later): 1. Bump both minor and sub-minor numbers. 2. Bump the major number(s). I think that we also could do one of: 3. Bump only the minor numbers, but twice (to avoid 2 different 4.3.x series). Start with new subminors. Changes to 4.2 would go in 4.4.x. Mainline would be in 4.5.x. 4. Bump only the subminor number. Maybe correcting license holes could be considered sort of a bugfix. MHO (best first) is 0,4,3, huge gap 1, 2. -- R. D. Flowers Earth Rising 481 days until they pay 558 days until he leaves
Re: [testsuite gfortran] partial fix for secnds*.f
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 05:14:51PM +, R. D. Flowers, Chattanooga TN USA wrote: I think we should use parentheses to enforce the order. I could be missing something here, and it is almost separate statements, and might be ugly, but -- comma clauses? foo=term1,foo+=term2,foo+=term3 ... ; URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#nonbugs_c The link you supplied points to potential problems if there are inadequate sequence points in the presence of side-effects. It doesn't mention comma clauses, does it? I do not see the problem when providing adequate sequence points ( what AFAIK is the sole purpose of comma's in a statement -- comma clauses ), and when the terms are constants or simple expressions (so no side-effects). Am I missing something embarassingly obvious ( comma got removed from the C standard or something )?
