This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC version bikeshedding

On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 11:04:14AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jakub Jelinek <> wrote:
> > - libstdc++ ABI changes (it is a significant user visible change,
> >   if you rebuild everything, no extra effort is needed, but otherwise
> >   if you want some C++ code built with older compilers work together
> >   with code built with newer compilers, it might require source code
> >   changes (the abi_tag attribute additions where needed and warning
> >   suggest to put those at), at least that is my current understanding
> >   of the plans
> But that's only with -std=c++11?  Which had no compatibility
> guarantees before?
> > - likely libgfortran ABI changes (different array descriptors)
> Let's wait and see ...
> We'll find a good reason to bump the major with every release.
> Like for 4.9 LTO defaults to slim-objects, or C++ rejecting even more
> invalid code, or libstdc++ header re-orgs, or defaulting to dwarf4+
> (or even support for it), or VTA, or ...
> Where do we set the barrier?  GCC isn't a C++ (or Fortran) compiler
> only.
> So if we change to 5.1 (please not .0) then let's switch the default
> optimization level to -O2!  _That's_ a user-visible change across
> the board.

I'm planning to move the default C standard from gnu90 to gnu11
(Currently it's blocked on the -Wc90-c99-compat warning).
That's a pretty big user-visible change as well, I suppose.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]