On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 12/12/2011 09:37 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote: >> >> Thanks for the comments Paolo. I have attached the new patch. I have >> bumped the version to 3.4.18 > > You shouldn't: 4.7 is not out yet, thus no reason to increase the minor > version beyond the current 17. Ok, I then don't understand your comment "Note that backporting the patch as-is to 4_6-branch would be very wrong in terms of ABI (in mainline we already have a 3.4.17)". My original patch added the new symbol in version 3.4.17. Since we don't want to add the symbol to 3.4.16 (if we have a situation where the new runtime is not available when running a program compiled with -fsized-delete) and you said I shouldn't be using 3.4.17, I assumed I had to bump up the version.
> >> and used _ZdlPv[jmy] in gnu.ver. I have >> also added the symbol to baseline_symbols.txt of other targets. > > You should not, just read again what I wrote. And you don't have to believe > me: just browse the libstdc++ ChangeLogs and see if somebody ever does that > when the linker map is touched. Sorry, I again misunderstood this as well (and still don't have a good picture). Is the part which adds _ZdlPv[jmy] in gnu.ver ok? I added that by mimicking the symbol _Znw[jmy] found in the same file. From the log, it looks like the baseline_symbols.txt seems to be generated, but I am not sure how that is to be done. For example, r145437 says a bunch of these baseline_symbols.txt are regenerated, but I don't see any other change from which this might be generated. Thanks, Easwaran > Paolo.
