From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27986 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2009 17:13:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 27971 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2009 17:13:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from web34805.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO web34805.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (209.191.68.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:13:40 +0000 Received: (qmail 63804 invoked by uid 60001); 15 Apr 2009 17:13:38 -0000 Message-ID: <340697.63416.qm@web34805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [67.52.129.61] by web34805.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:13:38 PDT Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:13:00 -0000 From: mario guerra Subject: Re: supporting multiple versions of GCC with a single shared object release? To: mario guerra , Ian Lance Taylor Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2 --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > From: Ian Lance Taylor > Subject: Re: supporting multiple versions of GCC with a single shared object release? > To: "mario guerra" > Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org > Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 5:21 PM > mario guerra > writes: > > > I work for a chip company that produces a C++ > simulator for one of our > > processor cores, which we deliver as a shared object > file. We've used > > GCC version 3.3.3 to build it, since that is the > standard version > > deployed within our company. However, some of our > customers are > > attempting to incorporate our model into third party > simulation > > environments which use different versions of GCC, and > this sometimes > > causes segmentation faults at run time from calls into > the stdc++ > > library. We're trying to find a way to support > customers who may be > > using different versions of GCC without having to > create a custom > > simulator build for each customer. > > The C++ compiler/library is supposed to have a stable ABI > as of gcc 4.0 > and later. For earlier versions, you pretty much do > have to do a build > for each version. > > Ian > Hi Ian, If we built our simulator with 4.x, wouldn't that potentially break some of our third party vendors who are still using some variant of 3.x? The 4.x library isn't backwards compatible, is it? Mario