From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25995 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2002 13:19:04 -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 25987 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 13:19:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at) (128.130.111.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 13:19:01 -0000 Received: from pulcherrima (pulcherrima [128.130.111.23]) by vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g66DI2C17332; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 15:18:02 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 06:44:00 -0000 From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Andreas Jaeger , "David O'Brien" cc: Mark Mitchell , Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00266.txt.bz2 On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Andreas Jaeger wrote: >> 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. > The same applies for SuSE and possible also other distributors, What's the cut-off date where you (Andreas, David,...) would need to have a release of GCC with such a C++ ABI change? There are strong arguments not to make this change for 3.1.1 which is due quite soon, but that doesn't prevent us from making another release shortly thereafter, for example. Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/