------- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-08 21:48 ------- (In reply to comment #3)
> Does your comment mean that this configuration is strongly discouraged, or > that the bug report lacked relevant information? Neither ;) Not the former, because we are putting a lot of efforts on that allocator and it can offer substantial performance advantages in many circumstances; not the latter, because the relevant information could be easily guessed ;) Actually, it means that mt is much less tested than the default, much more complex, and, moreover, that *strictly speaking* we don't provide binary compatibility guarantees about it. In general, the ABI stability is only guaranteed for default configurations (of the non-trivial options, of course, not of --prefix) This doesn't imply that we are not going to look into your report, of course. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24712
