From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2602 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2002 21:40:47 -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 2588 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 21:40:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.codesourcery.com) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 21:40:46 -0000 Received: from gandalf.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gandalf.codesourcery.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g65LZRN04658; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:35:27 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:02:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: "obrien@FreeBSD.org" cc: Andreas Jaeger , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , Gerald Pfeifer Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Message-ID: <26270000.1025904927@gandalf.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <20020705142838.C89951@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <18910000.1025898677@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020705142838.C89951@dragon.nuxi.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/msg00242.txt.bz2 --On Friday, July 05, 2002 02:28:38 PM -0700 David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 12:51:17PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: >> In any case, GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2 will not be 100% binary compatible >> with respect to the C++ ABI. >> >> I can't say what that might mean as a distributor. > > I can -- MAJOR pain and difficulty. It would probably prevent FreeBSD > using GCC 3.2 in our 5.1 and later 5.x releases. That means 1-2 years > before the compiler can be upgraded for our users. > > I urge you as strongly as I can to back port (#define wrap if needed) the > changes so that GCC 3.1.1 can be built to be 100% C++ ABI compatible with > GCC 3.2. FreeBSD can much more easily accept breakage between 3.1[.0] > and 3.1.1, than between 3.1.1 and 3.2[.0] as we are still developing 5.0 > and can take ABI hits right now. It's not the job of the FSF maintainers to do this. If FreeBSD wants to backport patches, for its version, that's fine. My goal, as RM, is for FSF users to be able to go from 3.1 to 3.1.1 without difficulty. (The point of the minor releases is to fix critical bugs.) We can't possibly know when we release 3.1.1 -- soon -- what changes may or not be in 3.2 -- which is still months away. I, of all people, appreciate the importance of binary compatibility in C++. There's really very little we can do, other than trying to find and fix all the problems. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com