This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: ABI Issues: C++ PATCH: PR 12053
- From: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, jason at redhat dot com, phil at codesourcery dot com, bkoz at redhat dot com, jbuck at synopsys dot com
- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 10:26:55 +0100
- Subject: Re: ABI Issues: C++ PATCH: PR 12053
- Organization: Codesourcery LLC
- References: <200309032241.h83MfPvW021214@sirius.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell wrote:
1) Anyone object to putting this on the 3.3 branch?
I think we should maintain ABI compatibility within the 3.3 branch,
by default
2) Should we make -fabi-version=2 the default in GCC 3.4?
At this point, the only ABI problems I know about in GCC 3.4 have
to do with anonymous local unions and the mangling of local string
literals. Since the library API is changing again, it seems to me
that we might want to make this switch, but I won't argue for it
storngly.
The new C++ parser is effectively going to force recompilation of every
C++ program. It would be painful to users to force them to do it all
at once, so not changing the ABI might be better. But, if the library
is changing anyway, there's no compatibility, so it might could be
changed. Also, if a user updates one part of their program to g++3.4,
and links it with a 3.3 generated library, and their program no longer
works, they're probably going to have to update everything anyway in order
to track the problem down. Oh, I don't know ...
nathan
--
Nathan Sidwell :: http://www.codesourcery.com :: CodeSourcery LLC
The voices in my head said this was stupid too
nathan@codesourcery.com :: http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk