This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [v3] make check-abi
- From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
- To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:36:52 -0500 (CDT)
- Subject: Re: [v3] make check-abi
- Organization: Networks and Infrastructure Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs
In article <200208222001.g7MK1Od03578@fillmore.constant.com> Benjamin writes:
> At the moment, there is only a baseline file for x86/linux. Loren has
> indicated a BSD baseline exists, so I expect this will be checked in
Baseline installed for i386-unknown-freebsd4.6 as well, but I see I
only mailed the libstdc++ list with my actual patch (and I avoided
posting the large new file as well).
Shall we tweak the configure fragments as required so that if
config/abi/CPU-VENDOR-OSX.Y/baseline_symbols.txt is not found then
(at least) config/abi/CPU-VENDOR-OSX/baseline_symbols.txt and then (maybe)
config/abi/CPU-VENDOR-OS/baseline_symbols.txt are candidates for use.
gcc 3.2 on CPU-unknown-freebsd4 has one C++ ABI and gcc 3.2 on
CPU-unknown-freebsd5 may have another (although it may coincidentally
be identical). By default, the target triples constructed by
config.guess on FreeBSD, Solaris and elsewhere add the OS version
> It is my intention to require library check-ins on the gcc-3_2-branch
> to pass 'make check-abi' before being put on the branch. I think this is sane.
Most sane. As well, check-ins on mainline should have explainable
changes only. For example, we have three symbol removals that are
explainable in that no user code should have called them directly or