This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ PATCH: Add -fabi-version
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, fjh at cs dot mu dot OZ dot AU
- Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 07:40:39 -0700
- Subject: Re: C++ PATCH: Add -fabi-version
Shouldn't this issue a warning even if abi_version_at_least (2)
returns fails? E.g. something like
warning ("ABI change: versions 3.2 and earlier of GCC "
"used a different ABI for `%T'", t);
Keeping track of this for more than two versions of the ABI will drive
you crazy, I think.
On the other hand, if you want -Wabi to do this, or you want -Wabi=n,
go ahead. :-)
It would be helpful to document what the default is.
OK, I'll add that.
With your current code, I think this test will fail if compiled with
-fabi-version=1, since the warning won't be issued. That might make
No, -fabi-version=1 is the default; my patch did not change the default
Furthermore, shouldn't the 3.2 ABI be 102, not 1, to match
Gentlemen, you can make this as complicated as you want. If you want
to key it off dates, or __GXX_ABI_VERSION, that's fine. In my judgement,
you're more likely to make it harder to get the actual code right, but
that's up to you.
Also, wouldn't it be better to change that 0 to INT_MAX when
initializing it, so the test could be simplified?
I don't know; maybe.
But surely you don't want me to write:
to turn on the closest approximating ABI.
I'll be out of town much of this week, and I don't have strong feelings
about this stuff. I think it's the stuff of which flamewars are made.
I'll happily go along with whatever people want; make changes as you
see fit. Just don't change the ABI itself. :-)
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com