From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4133 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2002 21:42:25 -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 4096 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 21:42:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.codesourcery.com) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 21:42:24 -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 g65LbFN04666; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:37:15 -0700 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:08:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: "obrien@freebsd.org" cc: Andreas Jaeger , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Message-ID: <26670000.1025905035@gandalf.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <20020705143353.D89951@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <18910000.1025898677@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <19510000.1025899870@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020705143353.D89951@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/msg00243.txt.bz2 --On Friday, July 05, 2002 02:33:53 PM -0700 David O'Brien wrote: > On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 01:11:10PM -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. >> > How severe is this? Will people encounter this in every day code or >> > is only in some esoteric situations? > ... >> I would lean towards "only in some esoteric situations", but of course >> that depends on exactly what you consider esoteric. > > Would we see it in KDE and GNOME and all the related C++ libs there? I don't think anybody knows. >> > it would be better to have 3.1.1 and 3.2 compatible (with the cost of >> > 3.1 and 3.1.1 not compatible to each other). >> >> This bit has already been decided. We will not break compatibility >> between minor releases (3.1 and 3.1.1) unless it is absolutely >> necessary. I don't think renumbering is going to help a lot. > > Why not put the decision in the hands of the distributors? Offer both > 3.1 and 3.2 C++ ABI's and let the vendor pick the one they want with a ># define. Because our goal is to produce minor releases that fix critical bugs. Adding in new, not nearly as well-tested ABI changes, one week for a release is simply not going to happen. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com