This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: HPUX C++ ABI
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "law at redhat dot com" <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "jessica at cup dot hp dot com" <jessica at cup dot hp dot com>, "sje at cup dot hp dot com" <sje at cup dot hp dot com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 10:04:20 -0700
- Subject: Re: HPUX C++ ABI
--On Thursday, September 12, 2002 02:32:08 PM -0600 Jeff Law
<law@porcupine.slc.redhat.com> wrote:
In message <26570000.1031852797@warlock.codesourcery.com>, Mark Mitchell
writes :
>I've been talking to folks at HP about the C++ ABI in aCC.
>
>They implemented the C++ ABI in aCC using earlier versions of the ABI
>spec. Due to changes in the spec, and a few mistakes, aCC doesn't
>match up with G++. Because aCC is already in production use, they don't
>want to make changes to aCC. But, they do want people to mix G++ and
>aCC objects.
Precisely what platform? Is the PA or IA-64? For the former, I'd be
rather surprised if aCC with a G++-like ABI is in that widespread
production use. For the latter, it would seem to me that there may
be alternate compilers one day.
HPUX on IA-64.
But I'm not all
that thrilled to see us installing hacks to work around bugs in HP's
compiler.
That's a somewhat unfair characterization. Remember that the last
substantive change to the ABI spec happenned within the last few weeks;
there's no way they could have gotten it right a year ago. For the
most part, these are not things that a user using only HP's compiler
would ever notice; they are simply incompatibilities with G++.
That said, I agree with your major concern: any changes need to be
circumspect; we do not want our C++ maintainers having to understand
six different ABI variants in order to make a change.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com