<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 4, 2015, at 8:32 AM, Burton, Ross <<a href="mailto:ross.burton@intel.com" class="">ross.burton@intel.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On 4 September 2015 at 16:29, Khem Raj <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:raj.khem@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">raj.khem@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div id=":34o" class="a3s" style="overflow:hidden">a small nit. Make it 5.% to logically indicate that 5.x is a bug fix release and next big upgrade will be<br class="">
6.x<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class="">To be honest I'd prefer *any* change to the compiler beyond eg 5.2.0 -> 5.2.1 to be explicit. I think we've all seen enough breakage from a "bug fix" release to know that it needs a proper test.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>well to put it in simple way gcc has changes its release numbers so </div><div><br class=""></div><div>4.9.x is same as 5.x now ( bug fix release) . Does that help</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_extra">Ross</div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>