From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7195 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2002 15:54:42 -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 7168 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 15:54:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 15:54:39 -0000 Received: from dsl254-114-096.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.114.96] helo=nevyn.them.org) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17Qrt4-0002rO-00; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 10:54:18 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17QrtF-0004jQ-00; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:54:29 -0400 Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andreas Jaeger Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , Jakub Jelinek , Mark Mitchell , "obrien@freebsd.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Message-ID: <20020706155428.GA17992@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andreas Jaeger , Gabriel Dos Reis , Jakub Jelinek , Mark Mitchell , "obrien@freebsd.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" References: <18910000.1025898677@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <19510000.1025899870@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020705143353.D89951@dragon.nuxi.com> <26670000.1025905035@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020706144023.W20867@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00277.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 03:44:35PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Gabriel Dos Reis writes: > > > Jakub Jelinek writes: > > > > | But if 3.1.2 was called 3.2, it would not be minor release but major, thus > > | could introduce ABI incompatibilities. > > > > As I understand people are objecting to having 3.1.x not binrary > > compatible with 3.2.y. > > The problem is that people are soon going to use 3.1.x in production > environments. If we switch today to 3.1, we're stuck with it, since > it will be binary incompatible to later versions. But if a release > [1] from the 3.1 branch happens that ensures binary compatibilty with > later GCC versions - and this happens in the next few weeks, I expect > that the communities can switch to that version. This should solve at > least the problems I have at SuSE. > > Andreas > > Footnotes: > [1] Note I don't give a version number here. On the Debian side, we're starting to organize a move from gcc 2.95 to a 3.1-branch compiler as the system compiler, with hopes to do it in the next couple of months. Changing compilers in such a way as to break the C++ ABI is a gargantuan effort for a continually-updating system like Debian's unstable distribution, and I expect it to be a very painful process. Not something I want to do more than once. On the other hand, I'm not terribly concerned here. These sound like bugs which we can easily resolve on a case-by-case basis if they actually manifest in a given library's interfaces, rare enough that we won't need the sort of all-at-once effort that v2->v3 is going to require. [I speak for no man and no company] -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer