[Bug c++/64956] New: __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[Bug c++/64956] New: __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[doko at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956

            Bug ID: 64956
           Summary: __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the
                    5.x releases
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.9.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: blocker
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: doko at gcc dot gnu.org

currently defined as:

  #define __GXX_ABI_VERSION 999999

I assume this needs a proper definition for the release.

[Bug c++/64956] [5 Regression] __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-02-09
   Target Milestone|---                         |5.0
            Summary|__GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a   |[5 Regression]
                   |proper definition for the   |__GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a
                   |5.x releases                |proper definition for the
                   |                            |5.x releases
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.

[Bug c++/64956] [5 Regression] __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956

--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Well, -fabi-version=0 (which is the default now) has always behaved that way.
The question is if we want to change that or not.

[Bug c++/64956] [5 Regression] __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[doko at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956

--- Comment #3 from Matthias Klose <doko at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I found this snippet in one of the xapian headers.

#ifdef __GNUC__
#if __GNUC__ < 3 || (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ == 0)
#error Xapian no longer supports GCC < 3.1
#else
#if !defined(__GXX_ABI_VERSION) || __GXX_ABI_VERSION != 1002
#error The C++ ABI version of compiler you are using does not match
#error that of the compiler used to build the library. The versions
#error must match or your program will not work correctly.
#error The Xapian library was built with g++ 4.9.1
#endif

my impression was that a value of 999999 means something like
"unstable"/"newest". Assuming that there will be another version, which value
should be chosen for that one?

[Bug c++/64956] [5 Regression] __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956

Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org      |jason at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug c++/64956] [5 Regression] __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956

--- Comment #4 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Feb 13 05:26:37 2015
New Revision: 220675

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
    PR c++/64956
    * c-opts.c (c_common_post_options): Change flag_abi_version from 0
    to the current highest version.
    * c-cppbuiltin.c (c_cpp_builtins): Assert that it isn't 0.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/c-family/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c
    trunk/gcc/c-family/c-opts.c
    trunk/gcc/common.opt
    trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/abi/macro0.C

[Bug c++/64956] [5 Regression] __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[trippels at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956

Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from Markus Trippelsdorf <trippels at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.

[Bug c++/64956] [5 Regression] __GXX_ABI_VERSION needs a proper definition for the 5.x releases

[jason at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64956

--- Comment #6 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #3)
> #if !defined(__GXX_ABI_VERSION) || __GXX_ABI_VERSION != 1002
> #error The C++ ABI version of compiler you are using does not match
> #error that of the compiler used to build the library. The versions
> #error must match or your program will not work correctly.
> #error The Xapian library was built with g++ 4.9.1
> #endif

I would expect that Xapian built with -fabi-version=2 and -fabi-version=8
should be compatible; the only changes to the compiler ABI are mangling, which
with a template library probably only leads to a bit of code bloat from
duplicated functions with different names.  I suppose there could be runtime
issues if there are variables mangled differently, but that's less likely.