This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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] |
On 27 November 2011 00:24, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On the way I spotted an odd reference to GCC. ?Looking at the > overall document, it occurs to me that > > ?- newer versions of GCC are not covered, and > ?- references to GCC generally are of the form gcc-X.Y instead of GCC X.Y. > > Is this something one of you guys (libstdc++) could have a look at? How's this? I think I got all the versions and dates correct, but I must say I find keeping some of this info in the manual to be tedious and unnecessary. For an unnecessary example, these days the value of __GLIBCXX__ is the date a release was made, available from e.g. http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/ To deal with the tedious parts, I changed a few repetitive instances of 4.1.0, 4.1.1, 4.2.0, 4.2.1, 4.3.0 etc. etc. to just 4.x.x which will be accurate in future and can be changed if it needs to be, rather than having to keep adding new entries that say the headers for GCC 4.6.1 are in include/c++/4.6.1 and, guess what, the headers for GCC 4.6.2 are in include/c++/4.6.2 Would 4.*.* or 4.?.? be better than 4.x.x? I'm not sure why we need to explicitly state the libgcc soname for every release when it's always the same. If noone objects to this approach I'll regenerate the HTML pages and check this in at some point in the next few days. If anyone objects, please find a volunteer to keep the tedious version up to date ;-)
Attachment:
abi_versions.txt
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |