Re: GCC multi-version development layout

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Monday, April 20th, 2026 at 12:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-help <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Apr 2026, 23:30 Heime, <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday, April 19th, 2026 at 7:50 PM, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-help <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 19 Apr 2026, 17:57 Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-help, <[email protected]
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 2026-04-19 at 16:33 +0000, Heime via Gcc-help wrote:
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > When building GCC from a cloned Git source tree using separate
> > > > > directories (as recommended), the directory structure follows
> > > > > a clean separation of source, build artifacts, and final
> > > > > installation.
> > > > >
> > > > > With different version of gcc, how would be the typical layout
> > > > > for specific branches to make patch changes to different gcc
> > > > > versions with multiple builds and install?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The layout doesn't matter at all. Anything will work.
> > >
> > > I have a directory ~/src/gcc/gcc for the git repo, where I work on trunk
> > > and then directories ~/src/gcc/gcc-15 and ~/src/gcc/gcc-14 etc for each
> > > release branch, using git worktree.
> > >
> > > I install each version to ~/gcc/X where X is 16, 15, 14 etc.
> > >
> > > But it really doesn't matter, anything works.
> > >
> > >
> > > > See https://git-scm.com/docs/git-worktree.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is definitely the best way to manage the repo, so that every release
> > > branch is just a worktree using the same repository metadata and config
> > > settings.
> >
> > Have been scrutinising the development timeline page
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#timeline
> >
> > The new GCC versioning scheme announced for GCC 5.1 is
> > not reliably described.  For instance, a major version
> > number increases GCC X to GCC X+1 (no more GCC X.Y to
> > GCC X.Y+1).
> >
> > The stage number does not seem to be added as a version
> > (there is no GCC X.0.1 (for stage 1), GCC X.0.3 (for stage 3)),
> > and so on.
> 
> 
> That's correct.
> 
> 
> >
> > It would help if the page got updated with improved descriptions.
> >
> 
> 
> I don't see a problem with it, what improvement are you suggesting?
 
The "Version DEV-PHASE When" table under "Version Numbering Scheme 
for GCC 5 and Up" shows GCC-5.Y.Z and GCC-6.Y.Z, which do not reflect
the actual "Release Timeline" described as GCC-5.Y and GCC-6.Y.

This produces confusion and lacks usefulness to fresh gcc developers
trying to make sense of the actual current scheme.