On 03/01/16 11:38, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 02.01.2016 17:11, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 02/01/16 15:53, Matthias Klose wrote: >>>>> In any case, GCJ_CXX_ABI_VERSION should be changed to not include >>>>> __GNUC_MINOR__ >>>>>>> anymore. Maybe for the gcc-5-branch, set it unconditionally to 3 so >>>>>>> that it >>>>>>> won't change anymore with future releases from the gcc-5 branch? >>>>> >>>>> That's safe only if Classpath and libgcj are not changed at all. >>> why? >> >> Because of the way that gcj's linkage works. If you change any of the >> vtable/itable indexes your program will crash. > > Right, but this no change compared to the 4.x.y releases. > > This is what I committed to the trunk. > > So what to do with the gcc-5 branch? Apply the same patch to jvm.h, or fix > the > minor version to 3? The latter would be compatible at least with the 5.3 > release.
Neither. If you link a program with libgcj then you need to recompile it when a new version of libgcj comes along. It has always been this way. Why change this rule now, at this stage of GCJ's life? Andrew.
