This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ ABI testing issues, gcc-3.3 <-> gcc-3.2 compatibility
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: bkoz at redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 01:59:09 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: C++ ABI testing issues, gcc-3.3 <-> gcc-3.2 compatibility
- Organization: Networks and Infrastructure Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> you write:
> I think it's important to insure that gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.2 are at the
> same C++ ABI before gcc-3.2 is released.
> (Brendan Kehoe, Jeff Law suggestion to run 'make check-c++' two ways,
> one with a new compiler and an old library, and the other with an old
> compiler and a new library, and look for testsuite regressions)
At first I thought it was subtly different, but I think I agree that
the above test covers what users will attempt. Under a promise of a
stable C++ ABI, users will attempt to build against 3.2 and then run
against 3.3 (or vice versa).
> [...] I'd apprecaite it if somebody could verify my results.
> 3.2 libstdc++.so.5 in a 3.3 build directory, make check == 0K
> 3.3 libstdc++.so.5 in a 3.2 build directory, make check == 15 FAILS
With 3.2 and 3.3 built this evening (using identical configuration
lines save path information), I don't see this issue on
3.2 libstdc++.so.5 (built against binutils ~2.12.1) in a 3.3 build
directory (built against binutils ~2.13), make check == 0K
3.3 libstdc++.so.5 (built against binutils ~2.12.1 on
i386-unknown-freebsd5.0!) in a 3.2 build directory (built against
binutils ~2.12.1 on i386-unknown-freebsd4.6), make check == OK
Loren J. Rittle, Principal Staff Engineer, Motorola Labs (IL02/2240)
email@example.com, KeyID: 2048/ADCE34A5, FDC0292446937F2A240BC07D42763672