Re: Binary Compatibility between 2.96 and 2.95.3

["Claudio Bley" <bley at cs dot uni-magdeburg dot de>]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Smith <Chris.Smith@uab.ericsson.se> writes:

    Chris> Hi Folks, I have read on http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
    Chris> that 2.96 compiled binaries (e.g. in RH7.1) are
    Chris> incompatible with 2.95.2. We have a large amount of
    Chris> libraries and binaries compile dwith 2.95.3 (i.e. not
    Chris> 2.95.2) that we are running on RH7.1 without observing any
    Chris> problems.

The site you mentioned also states:

,----
| Actually, C and Fortran code will probably be compatible, but code in
| other languages, most notably C++ due to incompatibilities in symbol
| encoding (``mangling''), the standard library and the application
| binary interface (ABI), is likely to fail in some way. Static linking
| against C++ libraries may make a binary more portable, at the cost of
| increasing file size and memory use.
`----

    Chris> Does anybody know what the situation is concerning this
    Chris> compatibility? Is it really a problem? Is it still a
    Chris> problem with 2.95.3 instead of 2.95.2?

Yes. And yes. But as stated above C and Fortran are usually fine.

    Chris> How will the incompatibility manifest itself?

Linking problems, relocation errors (if my memory serves right),
segfaults.


Claudio