From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10874 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2002 14:20:23 -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 10861 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 14:20:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO merlin.nerim.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 14:20:20 -0000 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by merlin.nerim.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id g66EJCX08251; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 16:19:12 +0200 To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Mark Mitchell , "obrien@freebsd.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? References: <18910000.1025898677@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <19510000.1025899870@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020705143353.D89951@dragon.nuxi.com> <26670000.1025905035@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020706144023.W20867@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Andreas Jaeger's message of "Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:44:35 +0200" Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 08:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00272.txt.bz2 Andreas Jaeger writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis writes: | | > Jakub Jelinek writes: | > | > | But if 3.1.2 was called 3.2, it would not be minor release but major, thus | > | could introduce ABI incompatibilities. | > | > As I understand people are objecting to having 3.1.x not binrary | > compatible with 3.2.y. | | The problem is that people are soon going to use 3.1.x in production | environments. If we switch today to 3.1, we're stuck with it, since | it will be binary incompatible to later versions. But if a release | [1] from the 3.1 branch happens that ensures binary compatibilty with | later GCC versions - and this happens in the next few weeks, I expect | that the communities can switch to that version. This should solve at | least the problems I have at SuSE. 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 not to follow our developement schedule (as proposed by Jakub) we have better to be sure that nearly all ABI bugs are fixed in 3.2 (or we will face the same problem later). Given the time-frame I'm not sure we have enought latitude to do that... -- Gaby