From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25087 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2002 19:59:09 -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 25028 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2002 19:59:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sunsite.mff.cuni.cz) (195.113.19.66) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Jul 2002 19:59:02 -0000 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by sunsite.mff.cuni.cz (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g6RJwt428849; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 21:58:55 +0200 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 18:32:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Franz Sirl Cc: Mark Mitchell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, "Kevin B. Hendricks" Subject: Re: GCC 3.2 Message-ID: <20020727215854.D20867@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <40360000.1027723811@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <200207271635.12319@enzo.bigblue.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200207271635.12319@enzo.bigblue.local>; from Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com on Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 04:35:12PM +0200 X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg01325.txt.bz2 On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 04:35:12PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote: > On Samstag, 27. Juli 2002 00:50, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > I have created the GCC 3.2 branch. > > > > Once Jakub indicates that the ABI patchset has been checked in, I will > > start rolling the 3.2 prerelease. > > Nice :-). > > On the ABI patches, shouldn't __GXX_ABI_VERSION be bumped now? I would also > request this macro to become a generic one, so you can use it while > preprocessing C and assembly, often used for bridging code like eg. in > mozilla. > > Another thing, Kevin Hendricks, one of the OpenOffice developers, sent me a > short test program with all the alignment stuff the OO people had to change > between 2.9x and 3.x. Would some of the C++ people take a close look at this > code? Note that the current ABI patches fixed already 2 problems the OO > people had to workaround with gcc-3.1, so maybe the others are ABI bugs as > well? I have tried it on ia32, with gcc 2.95.x, 2.96-RH, 3.1.1 and 3.2 CVS. The first 2 were identical, but showed several for the testcase unexpected results, 3.1.1 was worse and 3.2 is actually better than 2.9* according to the testcase expectations (with 2.9* > sizeof(second) = 8; __alignof__ (second) = 4 ### sizeof(second) = 8 instead of expected 4!!! while with 3.2 CVS > sizeof(second) = 4; __alignof__ (second) = 4 where second is: struct empty { }; struct second : public empty { int a; }; But I agree we should look at all the classes in the testcase and check the ABI what values should it really give (then adapt into a testcase and commit). Jakub