From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27516 invoked by alias); 24 May 2005 23:17:41 -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 27446 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2005 23:17:32 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 May 2005 23:17:32 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DaieI-0005Iw-QA; Tue, 24 May 2005 19:17:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jason@redhat.com, mark@codesourcery.com, dberlin@dberlin.org Subject: Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report Message-ID: <20050524231721.GA20351@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Zack Weinberg , Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jason@redhat.com, mark@codesourcery.com, dberlin@dberlin.org References: <1116907280.9577.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050524035919.GA23335@nevyn.them.org> <87fywdkvmp.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20050524134120.GA1680@nevyn.them.org> <1116976827.8637.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1116976827.8637.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg01318.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Um, there have been plenty of cases in the past where the top level set > something correctly and the subdirectory makefiles overrode it with an > incorrect setting. Ah, but once we have a globally correct setting in the top level we can brutally eliminate settings further down. This does require toplevel bootstrap. > In private mail someone suggested $ORIGIN to me as a possible solution. > I really don't mean to be giving the impression that these are > intractable problems; I just don't want them considered non-problems. $ORIGIN is nifty; but do you know how portable it is? I've got no clue. > > > I'd want to see at least two major releases with no libstdc++ soname > > > bump and no problems reported, before I had confidence we'd gotten > > > it right. > > > > You mean, like GCC 3.4 and GCC 4.0? > > If GCC 4.1 comes out without anyone having reported 3.4/4.0 > incompatibilities, and continues to provide libstdc++.so.6, then yes, > that would be like what I mean. However, the active development on the > libstdc++.so.7 branch means that we haven't even started the clock > running on this criterion yet. That would be three major releases unless you're counting differently than I am. My point was that we did preserve the soname between 3.4 and 4.0, and no one's reported trouble because of that yet - and I have fairly high confidence that no one will. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC