From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2158 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2003 08:30:56 -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 2059 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2003 08:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de) (134.2.170.113) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2003 08:30:53 -0000 Received: by bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (Postfix, from userid 30023) id 9EF6C11137; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:30:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bellatrix.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B899407; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 10:30:51 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 11:32:00 -0000 From: Richard Guenther To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Joe Buck , Subject: Re: Switching the default for -fabi-version In-Reply-To: <1066811338.4002.6.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg01039.txt.bz2 On 22 Oct 2003, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > which are not very clear (may vs. will) and omitting of a reason (in case > > of the second warning). So to say, if I can still specify -fabi-version=0 > > I'm happy with changing. But you could try to make sure you dont break > > libstdc++ compatibility with this change? > > This is the point everyone seems to be missing: libstdc++ compatibility > is *already* going to break in GCC 3.4. Ah, in this case its pointless arguing about a change in ABI (I think). Just go ahead. Thanks, Richard. -- Richard Guenther WWW: http://www.tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de/~rguenth/