From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10489 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2002 20:48:03 -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 10475 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 20:48:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uk.superh.com) (193.128.105.170) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 20:48:00 -0000 Received: from sh-uk-ex01.uk.w2k.superh.com (sh-uk-ex01 [192.168.16.17]) by uk.superh.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g66Kf8P22246; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:41:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from superh.com ([192.168.17.40]) by sh-uk-ex01.uk.w2k.superh.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:46:24 +0100 Message-ID: <3D27572F.3ADD854D@superh.com> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:47:00 -0000 From: Joern Rennecke Organization: SuperH UK Ltd. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gabriel Dos Reis , gcc@gcc.gnu.org CC: Jakub@superh.com, Jelinek@superh.com, Mark Mitchell , obrien@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jul 2002 20:46:25.0217 (UTC) FILETIME=[31B08310:01C2252E] X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2 > Thanks for the clarifications. So all that needs is to make an > exception to our earlier commitment that minor releases won't > introduce ABI incompatibility; or make an exception to our scheduled > development plan. I don't have any strong opinion. But if we were Well, we could could make a sub-branch from the 3.1 branch for the amended ABI, and call it 3.1bis . -- -------------------------- SuperH 2430 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4AQ T:+44 1454 462330