C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2?

[Andreas Jaeger]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

> --On Friday, July 05, 2002 02:33:53 PM -0700 David O'Brien
> <obrien@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 01:11:10PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>> >> In any case, GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2 will not be 100% binary compatible
>>> >> with respect to the C++ ABI.
>>> > How severe is this?  Will people encounter this in every day code or
>>> > is only in some esoteric situations?
>> ...
>>> I would lean towards "only in some esoteric situations", but of course
>>> that depends on exactly what you consider esoteric.
>>
>> Would we see it in KDE and GNOME and all the related C++ libs there?
>
> I don't think anybody knows.
>
>>> > it would be better to have 3.1.1 and 3.2 compatible (with the cost of
>>> > 3.1 and 3.1.1 not compatible to each other).
>>>
>>> This bit has already been decided.  We will not break compatibility
>>> between minor releases (3.1 and 3.1.1) unless it is absolutely
>>> necessary.  I don't think renumbering is going to help a lot.
>>
>> Why not put the decision in the hands of the distributors?  Offer both
>> 3.1 and 3.2 C++ ABI's and let the vendor pick the one they want with a
>># define.

That would mean incompatibility between 3.1. versions - my
self compiled 3.1.1 compiler would be incompatible to your
self-compiled 3.1.1 compiler :-(.

>
> Because our goal is to produce minor releases that fix critical bugs.
>
> Adding in new, not nearly as well-tested ABI changes, one week for a
> release is simply not going to happen.

What about postponing this change for 3.1.2 - with possible renaming
it to 3.2.2 - with the goal to be compatible to GCC mainline?

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj