From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-56182-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 795 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2002 13:44:39 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 775 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 13:44:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 13:44:38 -0000
Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201])
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 860D414481; Sat,  6 Jul 2002 15:44:37 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from aj by arthur.inka.de with local (Exim 3.34 #1)
	id 17QprX-0006g7-00; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:44:35 +0200
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
	Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>,
	"obrien@freebsd.org" <obrien@freebsd.org>,
	"gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?
References: <u8k7ob78p1.fsf@gromit.moeb>
	<18910000.1025898677@gandalf.codesourcery.com>
	<u88z4qvsts.fsf@gromit.moeb>
	<19510000.1025899870@gandalf.codesourcery.com>
	<20020705143353.D89951@dragon.nuxi.com>
	<26670000.1025905035@gandalf.codesourcery.com>
	<u8adp5v2od.fsf@gromit.moeb> <m3pty182a0.fsf@merlin.nerim.net>
	<20020706144023.W20867@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>
	<m3d6u16l7p.fsf@merlin.nerim.net>
From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 07:53:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <m3d6u16l7p.fsf@merlin.nerim.net> (Gabriel Dos Reis's message
 of "06 Jul 2002 15:26:50 +0200")
Message-ID: <u8r8ihrmws.fsf@gromit.moeb>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) XEmacs/21.4 (Artificial
 Intelligence, i386-suse-linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00271.txt.bz2

Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@codesourcery.com> writes:

> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> 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.

Andreas

Footnotes: 
[1]  Note I don't give a version number here.

-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj