This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite, part 6: section about upgradingthe compiler
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gp at suse dot de>
- To: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>
- Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:58:30 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite, part 6: section about upgradingthe compiler
- References: <200311172344.hAHNixsV005068@relay.rwth-aachen.de>
Looks fine, thanks for that work!
Please find some more detailed comments below. (It's actually much easier
for me to make such comments than rewrite something from scratch, so I'm
always happy to get patches from you. ;-) )
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> +++ bugs.html Tue Nov 18 00:25:06 2003
> +<p>With each major release (i.e. when the first or second part of the
> +version number changes) the ABI (application binary interface) usually
> +changes. (The ABI defines how the elements of classes are laid out,
> +how functions are called, how function names are mangled etc.)
...the application binary interface (ABI), which defines how..., usually
(In any case, please make the change to exchange the full and TLA versions
> +<em>must</em> recompile all C++ libraries (if you don't, you will get
> +linker errors or crashing programs).
...libraries, or you risk linker errors or crashing programs.
> However, the ABI isn't changed
"is not" (to add emphasis)
> +with bug-fix releases (i.e. when the third part of the version number
> +changes). The code is binary compatible among these versions.</p>
"should be" :-)
> +<p>Non-conforming legacy code that worked with older versions of GCC may be
> +rejected by more recent compilers. There's no command-line switch to ensure
"There is...compatibility in general, ...."
> +old-style code at the same time would render the C++ frontend unmaintainable.
> +However, some non-conforming constructs are allowed when the command-line
> +option "-fpermissive" is passed to the compiler.</p>
"<code>-fpermissive</code> is used."
> +<li>The implicit typename extension got removed (it was already deprecated
Put implicit typename in quotes?