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
- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:33:47 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite, part 6: section about upgradingthe compiler
- References: <200311191221.hAJCLEsV019767@relay.rwth-aachen.de>
- Resent-subject: Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite, part 6: section about upgrading the compiler
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> Well, the sentence would get way too long for my taste (about 4 lines in
> the HTML source). I'd rather suggest the following:
> + <h4>ABI changes</h4>
> + <p>The application binary interface (ABI) defines how the elements of
> + classes are laid out, how functions are called, how function names are
> + mangled etc. It usually changes with each major release (i.e. when the
> + first or second part of the version number changes). You <em>must</em>
> + recompile all C++ libraries, or you risk linker errors or crashing
> + programs. However, the ABI is not changed with bug-fix releases (i.e.
> + when the third part of the version number changes). The code should be
> + binary compatible among these versions.</p>
I like that one; it's much better than what I suggested. ;-)
> Btw, shouldn't we rather write "risk linker errors or
> malfunctioning/crashing programs" instead of just "... crashing
Yup. Perhaps just "malfunctioning"?
> I found another glitch in the patch: I forgot to update the heading for
> the new section in the table of contents. This will be fixed in the
> final version.
Fine, thanks! (And please complain to the original reviewer for not
spotting that. <g>)