From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22002 invoked by alias); 5 Jul 2002 22:08:24 -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 21970 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 22:08:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out2.apple.com) (17.254.0.51) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Jul 2002 22:08:21 -0000 Received: from mailgate2.apple.com (A17-129-100-225.apple.com [17.129.100.225]) by mail-out2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g65M8LA13498 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv2.apple.com (scv2.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:08:05 -0700 Received: from apple.com (vpn-gh-62.apple.com [17.254.136.61]) by scv2.apple.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g65M83T00684; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:08:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D2618AF.55F5047A@apple.com> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 16:11:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs Organization: Apple Computer, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "H. J. Lu" CC: "David O'Brien" , Mark Mitchell , Andreas Jaeger , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , Gerald Pfeifer Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? References: <18910000.1025898677@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020705142838.C89951@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020705143534.A15158@lucon.org> <20020705144611.E89951@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020705145257.A15440@lucon.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00248.txt.bz2 "H. J. Lu" wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 02:46:11PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 02:35:34PM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > IMHO, keep the C++ ABI compatibility between 3.1 and 3.1.x, but break > > > between 3.1.x and 3.2, is one of the worst things anyone can do to gcc. > > > > Why? Both Andreas said that the change happening 3.1.1->3.2 will cause > > problems in upcoming OS releases. You didn't give any reasoning for your > > position. > > My position is I doubt many people really case the C++ ABI compatibility > between 3.1 and 3.1.1, at least I don't. I can even pretend 3.1 never > existed :-(. Apple is going to care a lot. Jaguar is all based on 3.1, and it's likely that some developer tool releases are going to use 3.1.1 or later, in which case it's imperative that 3.1 and 3.1.x all be binary compatible. 3.2 is a ways off still, who knows what kind of compatibility it will have in the end. It's even possible that we or somebody else will work up a patch to provide a runtime choice between 3.1 and 3.2 ABI - Apple's GCC already has terrible ugly patches to optionally emulate parts of the 2.95 ABI, but they (along with some ugly kernel hackery) make it possible for existing 0S X 10.1 drivers to "just work" on Jaguar, so they're worth the extra trouble. Stan