This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ ABI Issues
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, dje at watson dot ibm dot com (David Edelsohn), davem at redhat dot com (David S. Miller), mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:30:49 +0100
- Subject: Re: C++ ABI Issues
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> >Maybe the flag should be -fabi-gcc-3.2 . If true, we are compatible with
> >GCC 3.2; if false, we include as many bug fixes as we have to ABI conformance
> >at the time. It would be true by default until we have reasonable
> >confidence that we've converged, and I think we need six months to achieve
> >such confidence, assuming that we do some rigorous testing in that time.
Well, I'd prefer a flag of the form -fabi=gcc-3.2 then we could easily
extend that to any later version. It's also then clear that you can't
specify more than one such flag (or -fno-abi-gcc-3.2).
Finally, we could then also have -fabi=std meaning compile to the standard
(well, more precisely, don't do anything we know to violate the ABI).