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: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- Cc: ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, tm_gccmail at kloo dot net, gp at suse dot de, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:53:33 +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 20 Nov, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > Richard Earnshaw <email@example.com> writes:
> >> 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.
> > As an important aside, while the compilers' C++ ABI is formally specified
> > (and adhered to except for bugs), the libstdc++-v3 ABI is not and still
> > changes in incompatible ways between releases, AFAIK, so until this is
> > resolved, recompilation will be necessary even with a stable C++ ABI.
> Good point. So we actually have two ABI's, the C++ ABI and the
> libstdc++-v3 ABI. We should clarify this is bugs.html (which currently
> only talks about the C++ ABI).
No, we have one ABI, but these are just two components of it.