From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17449 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2002 09:03:44 -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 17441 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2002 09:03:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO merlin.nerim.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jul 2002 09:03:42 -0000 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by merlin.nerim.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id g6891sb25181; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 11:01:54 +0200 To: Bernard Dautrevaux Cc: "'Joern Rennecke'" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub@superh.com, Jelinek@superh.com, Mark Mitchell , obrien@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E5E4@IIS000> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Bernard Dautrevaux's message of "Mon, 8 Jul 2002 10:36:21 +0200" Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 04:07:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00340.txt.bz2 Bernard Dautrevaux writes: | Then what was for now named 3.2 byt GCC *developpers* (a much smaller | community than gcc *users*) may have to be renamed 3.3 if there is | incompatibilities with this 3.2 release (or major change in features), but | may just become 3.2.1 otherwise. If people are complaining for incessant ABI incompatibilities between GCC releases, then it occurs to me that the ABI changes in your proposed 3.3 version should also be incorporated into your proposed 3.2 version. Which means, we delay the release for the actual 3.2 to incorporate all needed and known ABI changes. Right now, does anyone produce testcases that show that the ABI changes under discussion affect in unreconciliable ways current softwares? -- Gaby