From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8880 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2009 17:40:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 8863 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2009 17:40:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:40:43 +0000 Received: from zps75.corp.google.com (zps75.corp.google.com [172.25.146.75]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n3FHefwE028797; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:40:41 -0700 Received: from localhost.localdomain.google.com (dhcp-172-22-125-203.mtv.corp.google.com [172.22.125.203]) (authenticated bits=0) by zps75.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n3FHedNn017906 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:40:39 -0700 To: mario guerra Cc: mario guerra , gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: supporting multiple versions of GCC with a single shared object release? References: <340697.63416.qm@web34805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:40:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <340697.63416.qm@web34805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> (mario guerra's message of "Wed\, 15 Apr 2009 10\:13\:38 -0700 \(PDT\)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00185.txt.bz2 mario guerra writes: > --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> 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. > > 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? No, the 4.x library is not reliably backward compatible. Actually it may be backward compatible to 3.4, but not before that. For earlier versions you will still have to do a build for each version. Ian