Do you need the vtable bug fixed?

[Joel Klecker]

At 16:09 +0200 1999-06-03, Franz Sirl wrote:
>Hmm, is there C++ binary compatibility between egcs-1.1.2 and
>gcc-2.95 anyway? Eg. I couldn't link gcc-2.95 compiled KDE stuff against a
>egcs-1.1.2 compiled qt-1.44 library on powerpc-linux-gnu. If there's no
>compatibility possible, someone should update the versioning stuff, otherwise
>I'll prepare a bug report.

On i?86-linux-gnu, binaries linked with the egcs 1.1.2 libstdc++ seem 
to work (though I did not do any extended testing) with the 
gcc-2_95-branch libstdc++, however the glibc 2.1 dynamic linker spits 
out over a screenfull of warnings about symbols having changed sizes 
in the shared object for every binary dynamically linked with 
'libstdc++-libc6.1-1.so.2'[0][1].

[0] Perhaps there is the belief that introduction of the config.if 
stuff in gcc 2.95 constitutes a soname bump, however, most GNU/Linux 
distributions have that stuff as a patch to their egcs 1.1.x sources 
already.

[1] I suggest that the libc_interface be changed to use "glibc2.?" if 
one of the other parts is bumped, since there is no such thing as 
"libc6.1" except on alpha-linux-gnu, where it means glibc 
2.<anything>, not only glibc 2.1.
-- 
Joel Klecker (aka Espy)                    Debian GNU/Linux Developer
<URL: mailto:jk@espy.org >                 <URL: mailto:espy@debian.org >
<URL: http://web.espy.org/ >               <URL: http://www.debian.org/ >