Re: C++ ABI Issues

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2002 at 11:53:48PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> 
> --On Monday, August 26, 2002 08:28:38 PM -0700 Benjamin Kosnik 
> <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Dude.
> >
> >>I propose that we fix G++ to match the ABI, but that we issue warnings
> >>about classes whose layout has changed from GCC 3.2.
> >
> >>If we are going to fix G++, we also have to decide how urgently to do
> >>another release.
> >
> >You seem to be very cavalier about the downstream impacts of changing
> >the C++ ABI, and what this means for sane tool versioning.
> 
> I tried to bring these issues to the attention of the GCC community
> promptly, and to present some realistic assessment of how important
> they are, or are not.
> 
> Certainly, one reasonable position is to do nothing.  Another is to
> (as several have suggested) support both modes (which seems like
> a good idea to me).  Another is my initial suggestion (to fix the
> problems right away.)  To me, the best argument for my suggestion is
> that at this point there aren't too many people dependent on 3.2; the
> longer we leave it around the harder it may to be change it later.

It's too late already.

A large number of distributions specifically said that they were
looking to change to a new system compiler, and that the previous
schedule for 3.2 would be too late for them.  I'd imagine most of them
have started (or in Debian's case, started arguing about...) the
transition by now.  Slipping another compiler in there is not going to
happen; GCC 3.2 is committed to widespread use at this point by nature
of its schedule.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer