This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Switching the default for -fabi-version
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, david dot moore at intel dot com
- Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:02:38 -0600
- Subject: Re: Switching the default for -fabi-version
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <1066780170.26681.14.camel@doubledemon.codesourcery.com>, Mark Mitch
ell writes:
>On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 16:44, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 21, 2003, at 04:24 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> > Since nobody really objected to David Moore's suggestion that we make
>> > -fabi-version=2 the default, I plan to change the default value of the
>> > flag on the mainline in the next few days.
>> >
>> > If you object, speak up now!
>>
>> Wait a few days or so, then consider putting this on the announce list.
>> That way we pick up folks that would not otherwise read the minutia of
>> day-to-day gcc development. Plug in architectures, openoffice, GTK, Qt
>> come to mind...
>>
>> I don't expect anyone to object... but I think it is good to
>> communicate with users on important points like this.
>
>Actually, I think that's not an appropriate use of the announce list.
>
>The average announce reader wants to know when a new release is out so
>they go download it.
>
>Understanding what this change even means requires an in-depth knowledge
>of compilers and C++.
>
>"Hi. We're planning to change the default C++ ABI in the next version
>of G++. You won't notice because (a) you'll have to recompile
>everything anyhow to use the library that comes with the new G++, and
>(b) this only affects weird corner-cases. However, if you happen to
>have no weird corner-cases and are going to try to use the new compiler
>with the old library, you might care.
>
>So, do you object?"
>
>I think that, given that the only people likely to notice are people who
>are operating way outside the mainstream of C++ development, this is not
>a decision that needs to be pre-announced. It should of course go in
>the release notes.
Well, maybe someone with in depth knowledge of what ABI things
have changed should chime in at this point and indicate what
has actually changed :-)
That seems like critical information to be able to make an informed
decision.
jeff