This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [RFC] Do we care about binary compatibility of code produced by cross-compilers?
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:44:42 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Do we care about binary compatibility of code produced by cross-compilers?
- References: <48A05898.9000705@oracle.com> <m37iane6sw.fsf@google.com> <48B160E6.3040908@oracle.com> <m3prnyksyx.fsf@google.com> <48B1DA23.2060404@oracle.com> <m3hc99lgsx.fsf@google.com> <48B2855E.5090907@oracle.com> <m38wulkkuh.fsf@google.com> <48B2FCDC.7080101@oracle.com> <48B30F10.70100@oracle.com> <48B31507.7040007@oracle.com> <m3zln0kdn3.fsf@google.com> <48BBD5F8.2040808@oracle.com>
Paolo Carlini wrote:
> As far as I can see, among the 4 libraries only libstdc++-v3 tries to be
> "smart" and runs it only when link-tests are always safe to do, when
> native. I find all of this rather puzzling. Shouldn't we run the test
> only once, at toplevel, propagate the information to the libraries, and,
> in case, have an infrastructure which allows the libraries to override
> the toplevel decision?
Yes, we should.
As per our earlier discussions, I think the libstdc++ "smart"-ness is a
mistake. We have a good method for probing the C library: link-time
tests. We don't use it for libstdc++ only because some people use a
build procedure in which you can't link C programs by the time you're
building the C++ library. I suspect the other library maintainers just
didn't worry about that scenario.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713