From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6195 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2002 02:10:49 -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 6180 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2002 02:10:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.localdomain) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2002 02:10:47 -0000 Received: from warlock.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6829DA29219; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:09:14 -0700 Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 23:14:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: David Edelsohn , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Message-ID: <20800000.1026094151@warlock.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200207052212.SAA21066@makai.watson.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00329.txt.bz2 --On Friday, July 05, 2002 06:12:28 PM -0400 David Edelsohn wrote: > I thought that after GCC 3.1 was released, C++ bugs were suppose > to be fixed in a backward-compatible way not requiring incompatible > changes in the ABI, even if that required extra work. When that's possible, that might make sense. In the cases we've run into so far, it hasn't been possible, regardless of how much work you put into it. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com