This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite,part 6: section about upgrading the compiler
- From: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
- To: gp at suse dot de
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:06:46 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite,part 6: section about upgrading the compiler
- Reply-to: Volker Reichelt <reichelt at igpm dot rwth-aachen dot de>
On 24 Nov, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Volker Reichelt wrote:
>> how about the following version:
>
> I'll leave the final decision to Richard, but some minor suggestions.
>
>>
>> The application binary interface (ABI) consists of two components: The first
> ^^^
> Here I'd add "C++".
Agreed.
>> of the objects in libstdc++. Although we strive for a non-changing ABI, we
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^
> "stable"? Add "historically"?
Well, the problem with "stable" is, that "unstable" could also mean that
the compiler often crashes because of bugs in the ABI. But that's not
what we want to say here. Therefore I chose "non-changing". Better ideas
are of course welcome.
I'd rather not add "historically", since we keep changing stuff. We
changed the version number of libstdc++ from 5.0.5 to 6.0.0 for example.
Programs compiled with GCC 3.3.2 won't run with this version.
>> code, or you risk linker errors or malfunctioning programs. (Some of our
>> Java support libraries also contain Java code, so you might want to recompile
> ^^^^
> "C++"?
Oops, sure. I shouldn't post to gcc-patches at 3 am. ;-)
Regards,
Volker