This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bernd Schmidt, release manager for GCC 2.95.3
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds at redhat dot com>,Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: Bernd Schmidt, release manager for GCC 2.95.3
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:03:42 +0100
- Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,loewis at informatik dot hu-berlin dot de,jason at redhat dot com
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0011301734010.1162-100000@host117.cygnus>
On Thursday 30 November 2000 18:37, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Joe Buck wrote:
> > In addition to the criteria that Bernd lists, we want to avoid any patch
> > that breaks C++ binary compatibility with gcc-2.95.2. We already have
> > three different incompatible C++ compilers in common use on GNU/Linux:
> > egcs-1.1.2, gcc-2.95.2, and what I'll call gcc-2.96RH. We want to avoid
> > creating one more; for one think, picking the shared library numbering
> > would be very tricky for an intermediate bug-fix version.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that makes it very hard to fix the vtable-thunks problem.
>
> I'll need to rely on people with more knowledge of the C++ frontend for
> this issue. Martin, Jason, as far as I know the vtable-thunks patch has
> been applied to the 2.95 branch already. Is there any chance whatsoever
> that it breaks binary compatibility? If so, it will have to be reverted.
The vtable patch is there, but it is either buggy or triggers a bug elsewhere
in the compiler. Try to run the C++ testsuite with -O2 as an additional flag
and watch it break. That's why I reverted to v1 vtables in my patchset (as
did Debian when they tried v2 vtables).
BTW, Bernd, I guess you should bump the date in gcc/version.h after you
checked in most/all of the patches.
Franz.