This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Removal of V2 code
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <email@example.com> writes:
Andrew> Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing
>> the configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things
>> seem to be settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX
>> issues with V3, but they seem to be well on the path to
>> If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2
>> sources to continue your work), you should:
>> - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform.
>> - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what
>> you need in order to make that happen.
Andrew> Do you really want to do this?
Andrew> Wouldn't it be better to take a more staggered approach?
Andrew> First release a GCC with both v2 and v3 ABI support and
Andrew> then release a successor that only contains v3 support.
We could do that. The SC decided a while back *not* to do that, but
it/we could change its/our collective mind.
The issue is that the new ABI implies the use of V3; V2 does not work
with the new ABI. We want to stop breaking the C++ ABI; that's one
major impetus for GCC 3.0. If we provide both ABIs, we're encouraging
people to use the old ABI, which is not quite the same as what was in
GCC 2.95.x, but is also not what we want to use going forward.
The attitude at the time the release criteria were put together was
that you could always use GCC 2.95 if you wanted an ABI compatible
with GCC 2.95. :-) In other words, there was a conscious decision not
to support the old ABI in GCC 3.0, with the hope of never again
chaging the C++ ABI.
Andrew> I expect many people to try to use GCC with pre installed
Andrew> tools (GDB comes to mind). Requiring people to upgrade to
Andrew> some not-yet-even-developed version of random tools is
Andrew> going to raise a few eyebrows.
Nowadays, what tends to happen for GNU/Linux users is that somebody
(Debian, Red Hat, etc) puts together a nice package with everyting in
it. I wouldn't expect GCC 3.0 to appear in those distributions until
other tools are in place. You're correct that users that aren't
getting their GNU diet spoon-fed to them (:-)) may have to download
development versions of some supporting tools. If we wait until all
those tools are ready, though, we'll likely be waiting a long time...
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com