Helping out GDB

[Daniel Berlin+list.gcc]

David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com> writes:

> 	The version of GCC implementing the new ABI is going to be
> gcc-3.0.  I would expect that the symbol "gcc2_compiled." should be
> changed to "gcc3_compiled."  Do any applications rely upon the symbol
> "gcc2_compiled." other than GDB?  GDB could detect "gcc3_compiled." to
> flag the current use of "gcc2_compiled." and the new C++ ABI.

No, we can't.
This assumes nobody will try to use gcc 3.0 + the old ABI for compatibility reasons (yes, i know it's going to be removed).
And what happens when you guys change something that i need to handle differently in gcc 3.1.

I think gcc2_compiled is a hack as is.
Can't you just put the compile flags or feature flags in a string and include that, so i can see if it says "GCC 3.0, new-abi, DWARF2 based exceptions", or some such?

I have a problem with assuming a version means features.
> 
> 	Let me guess: We are going to need to emit both "gcc2_compiled."
> and "gcc3_compiled." for backwards compatibility with GDB instead of
> updating the symbol atomically.
Why would this be true?
Nothing in GDB actually depends on gcc2_compiled being there. People before i became C++ maintainer gave up trying to detect the variations, and as a result, gcc2_compiled is never actually used right now (save one place, i believe, but it's not even exported from the file it's set in anymore).


>  At least that gives us another "bit" when
> "gcc3_compiled." symbols exists and "gcc2_compiled." symbol eventually is
> removed (:^).
> 
Feel free to remove it now, i grepped the sources, nothing uses it.

> David