[going to vacation for three weeks, therefore trimmed the CCs] Zack Weinberg writes: > Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > | Benjamin Kosnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > > > | > I've versioned the runtimes assuming that 3.3 will not break the 3.2 > > | > ABI, and that 3.4 will. Lacking clear guidance on what to do, I think > > | > this was an ok decision. > > | > > | There are groups out there, such as the LSB (Linux Standard Base) > > | effort, who are working on the assumption that the 3.2 ABI will > > | *never* be changed again. > > > > I believe the agreement was that the 3.2 and 3.3 won't be changed for > > the 3.2.x and 3.3.x series. > > > > But that agreement does not export to higher versions. People reading > > more into that agreement should be advised to coordinate/ask people > > workiing the C++ ABI and GCC/g++. > > I'm relaying this to the LSB working group in charge of C++ and also > to the Debian gcc team -- Debian is presently in the process of > transitioning to the 3.2 ABI and I am pretty sure they also were > operating under the assumption that it would not change ever again.
well, we are getting used to transitions ;-) Last time I checked the LSB list mentioned by Benjamin, I couldn't find any activity on the C++ issues. What I read from the gcc lists, I am under the impression that 3.3 doesn't change the ABI from the 3.2 series. Two ABI transitions in three months would really hurt. My plan is to make 3.3 the default compiler at least on some architectures, when it's released.
