From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30089 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2002 13:40:23 -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 30069 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 13:40:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 13:40:21 -0000 Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201]) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D5914488; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 15:40:21 +0200 (MEST) Received: from aj by arthur.inka.de with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 17Qpm6-0006C9-00; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:38:58 +0200 Mail-Copies-To: never To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , 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: Andreas Jaeger Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 07:42:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20020706144023.W20867@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> (Jakub Jelinek's message of "Sat, 6 Jul 2002 14:40:23 +0200") Message-ID: 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/msg00269.txt.bz2 Jakub Jelinek 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