From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16222 invoked by alias); 4 Jul 2002 16:55:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16210 invoked from network); 4 Jul 2002 16:55:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc03.attbi.com) (204.127.202.63) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jul 2002 16:55:13 -0000 Received: from ocean.lucon.org ([12.234.143.38]) by sccrmhc03.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020704165512.UIJU903.sccrmhc03.attbi.com@ocean.lucon.org>; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 16:55:12 +0000 Received: by ocean.lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7BAF7125D3; Thu, 4 Jul 2002 09:55:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 10:23:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Message-ID: <20020704095511.A23059@lucon.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from aj@suse.de on Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 06:35:06PM +0200 X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 06:35:06PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > > Would it make sense for a distribution starting to ship GCC 3.1 to > apply that bugfix? I prefer not to do this since it would mean that If it is true, those bug fixes should be moved into gcc 3.1 after verifying they are really ok. At least, there should be a gcc 3 clearing house for Linux for those kinds of ABI issuses so that there is a hope for a compatible C++ implememntation among different Linux distributions. H.J.