This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite, part 6: section about upgrading the compiler
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: tm_gccmail at kloo dot net
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>, gp at suse dot de, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:28:12 +0000
- Subject: Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite, part 6: section about upgrading the compiler
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > This isn't the final form, but I would think something along the lines of
> > GCC 3.0 introduced a new ABI which affected all aspects of compiling C++
> > programs. The intent of the change was to make G++ code compatible with
> > the emerging Generic C++ ABI. Unfortunately, the ABI is complex and at
> > this time we are still finding and fixing bugs in our implementation. If
> > you change your compiler (for example, from GCC 3.2 to GCC 3.3) you must
> > recompile all your libraries, or you will risk getting linker errors or
> How about changing the wording to "recompile all your C++ libraries" to
> make sure people know it doesn't affect the other languages?
The Java support libraries also contain C++ code. I think it's safer to
just say "recompile everything" here. True experts may be able to tell
when it's safe to ignore this suggestion, but others may need to err on
the side of caution in order to be sure.