This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: ABI compliance should be default for gcc 3.4

On Wed, Oct 15, 2003 at 04:52:22PM -0700, Moore, David wrote:
> Gcc 3.4 contains a lot of fixes for? C++? ABI bugs? found in gcc
> 3.2. There is an option to select either gcc 3.2 compatibility or C++
> ABI compliance.??C++ ABI compliance should be the default

Of course, yet more ABI bugs may yet be discovered, so if we do as you
ask, we will be closer to C++ ABI compliance but cannot promise that we
have achieved it.  Clearly at some point we will need to cut over, but the
most we can say is that 3.4 is ABI compliant *as far as we know*.

> For C++ compatibility and interoperability, ?the vast majority of the
> community will choose the default. Making?C++ ABI?compliance the default
> will mean gcc 3.4? compiled binaries?will not be binary compatible with
> gcc 3.2? compiled binaries. It?would, however, be the right decision at
> this point.?

In practice, it will be quite likely that a given C++ program will not hit
any of the ABI incompatibilities, and a clean compile with -Wabi turned on
would indicate that a given program is compatible with both 3.2 and 3.4.
And the LSB specifies 3.2, doesn't it?

Just the same, I think that you're right; 3.4 is a good time to switch
the ABI.  But I'd be interested in seeing how many -Wabi warnings we get
from real code ... an interesting experiment would be to build KDE with
3.4 and -Wabi and see what warnings we get.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]