From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Benjamin Kosnik , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: C++ ABI Issues Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 06:03:00 -0000 Message-id: <20020827130418.GA10632@nevyn.them.org> References: <20020826202838.4996c482.bkoz@redhat.com> <17480000.1030431228@warlock.codesourcery.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-08/msg01711.html On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 11:53:48PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > --On Monday, August 26, 2002 08:28:38 PM -0700 Benjamin Kosnik > wrote: > > > > >Dude. > > > >>I propose that we fix G++ to match the ABI, but that we issue warnings > >>about classes whose layout has changed from GCC 3.2. > > > >>If we are going to fix G++, we also have to decide how urgently to do > >>another release. > > > >You seem to be very cavalier about the downstream impacts of changing > >the C++ ABI, and what this means for sane tool versioning. > > I tried to bring these issues to the attention of the GCC community > promptly, and to present some realistic assessment of how important > they are, or are not. > > Certainly, one reasonable position is to do nothing. Another is to > (as several have suggested) support both modes (which seems like > a good idea to me). Another is my initial suggestion (to fix the > problems right away.) To me, the best argument for my suggestion is > that at this point there aren't too many people dependent on 3.2; the > longer we leave it around the harder it may to be change it later. It's too late already. A large number of distributions specifically said that they were looking to change to a new system compiler, and that the previous schedule for 3.2 would be too late for them. I'd imagine most of them have started (or in Debian's case, started arguing about...) the transition by now. Slipping another compiler in there is not going to happen; GCC 3.2 is committed to widespread use at this point by nature of its schedule. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer