C++ ABI Issues

[Nathan Sidwell]

Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Therefore, we will have to choose whether or not we want to change G++
> to match the specification.

> 
> If we are going to fix G++, we also have to decide how urgently to do
> another release.
We should not rush into producing another release with a slightly tweaked
abi.

My thoughts are,

Patch 3.2 with a -warn-future-abi (defaults to off), and
use that to add warnings of known discrepancies. This should be added
to HEAD.

Add -fabi-patch-level (defaults to '3.2'), to HEAD, and put
the fixes in there, gated on that switch being > 3.2. When 3.3 is due for
release, we can decide whether -fabi-patch-level should default to 3.3 or
remain at 3.2.

If we discover further discrepencies during 3.4's development, they
should be fixed and gated on the switch > 3.3.

nathan

-- 
Dr Nathan Sidwell   ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::   CodeSourcery LLC
         'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org