Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?

[Ben Woodhead <ben at echotech dot ca>]

Hello everybody.. 

If I remember correctly I believe that:
gcc x.y.z is 
x. Major  - Architecture Changes, 
y. Minor - Features added but no major architecture changes (slight changes to 
the abi could be possible here, if there are a small number of cases were it 
would affect). 
z. Patch - Patch levels are for overflows, nothing on the outside changes but 
possible bugs, such as not testing values, or overflows or fence post errors.

With that out of the way I find it really hard to see an abi change going into 
a patch level. Please, please please don't do that, 3.1.whatever should all 
match.. When talking about the version i should not have to say 3.1.1 because 
it should have only fixed segfaults and things like that, so the output and 
input should be the same, so 3.1 is fine.. 

As far as if this version is closer to version 3.1 or 3.2.. 3.2 does not exist 
so it can be what ever i want it to be.. ie, you could patch a text file in 
3.1 and call it 3.2 and theres nothing anybody can say about it. 

Just a possible suggestion, release 3.1.1 now the way it is, (on its release 
date) so the people using 3.1 can get the fixes they need. Then apply the abi 
changes, and test the output, try to find all the abi inconsistencies.. Then 
in August release version 3.1.1 with abi changes included as 3.2. 

That  way you don't have to worry about applying a patch a week way from the 
release date or making incompatabilities with 3.1.x. Also on the same not you 
don't have to try to release 3.2 with all the new features that are not well 
tested.. Everybodies is happy, the abi changes are in, and you don't have to 
worry about the experamental stuff from 3.2. 

Thanks, 
Ben Woodhead


Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | Well, we could could make a sub-branch from the 3.1 branch for the
> | amended ABI, and call it 3.1bis .
> 
> Isn't that going to make some confusion? (That isn't meant to be
> rhetorical, that is a serious question)

Well, it should generate less confusion than calling it 3.2.x or 3.1.x,
since it is clear that it is closer to 3.1 than to 3.2, but not the
original 3.1 .  It's the second attempt to have a workable 3.1 .
        
-- 
--------------------------
SuperH
2430 Aztec West / Almondsbury / BRISTOL / BS32 4AQ
T:+44 1454 462330