This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [v3] bump versioning on branch
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [v3] bump versioning on branch
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 07:54:03 -0700
- cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
--On Wednesday, August 15, 2001 09:12:43 AM +0200 Gabriel Dos Reis
<gdr@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:
>
> | On Aug 14, 2001, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> wrote:
> |
> | > - libstdc___la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 3:0:0 -lm
> | > + libstdc___la_LDFLAGS = -version-info 3:1:0 -lm
> |
> | This would mean that GCC 3.0.1's libstdc++-v3 is binary compatible
> | with 3.0's, which I'm not sure is the case given some differences in
> | the layout of empty or virtual base classes (I don't recall exactly).
> | If these changes don't affect libstdc++-v3, this patch is ok.
>
> Mark, is there any patch on the branch which makes g++-3.0.1
> incompatible with g++-3.0?
No, I do not believe so. We have tried hard to avoid any such change.
Of course, I cannot claim this with absolute certainty, but that is
my belief.
There are fixes to vtable layouts and such -- but they only change the
*contents* of the vtable, not the layout. So, that's not really an
ABI change; if you link some old code and some new code your program
will probably actually work better.
However, it's also high likely that the *library* has been changed
in substantial ways. Are there no changes to the types of library
functions, etc?
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com