Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?

[Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>]

Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:

> On Sat, Jul 06, 2002 at 02:32:55PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> | > Because our goal is to produce minor releases that fix critical bugs.
>> | >
>> | > Adding in new, not nearly as well-tested ABI changes, one week for a
>> | > release is simply not going to happen.
>> | 
>> | What about postponing this change for 3.1.2 - 
>> 
>> That would make an ABI incompatibility in minor releases.  That is
>> worst than incompatibility between major releases.
>> 
>> | with possible renaming
>> | it to 3.2.2 - with the goal to be compatible to GCC mainline?
>> 
>> I raise the same objection.  Minor releases should not introduce ABI
>> incompatibilities.  They should just feature non-ABI breaking bug
>> fixes.
>
> But if 3.1.2 was called 3.2, it would not be minor release but major, thus
> could introduce ABI incompatibilities.
> Apple could stay at 3.1, while Linux vendors, FreeBSD and whoever
> is currently preparing 3.1.x based distribution could still switch to this
> 3.2 and be (hopefully) binary compatible with the upcoming 3.3 
> (current trunk).

I agree with you, Jakub.

Who would be interested in such a switch?  FreeBSD and SuSE seem to be
interested.  What about Linux distributors, e.g. Red Hat and other
OSes?

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