This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: anderson at freestandards dot org
Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:10:59 -0700
Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
References: <20040729111335.57e712fd.bkoz@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0407291552020.21442@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com>

On Jul 29, 2004, at 2:05 PM, anderson@freestandards.org wrote:


The LSB includes by reference the Itanium C++ ABI
(http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/abi.html), which covers the
compiler behavior. The LSB supplements that specification by adding the
libstdc++ definitions.

Is there additional compiler behavior that is not covered by these? If
so, where is it documented?


Yes, the whole point that both 3.4.0 and 3.3.3 do not conform to that
standard all the time.

Andrew Pinski

References:
- opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
  - From: anderson

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