Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:05:34 -0700 From: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: 6.0-Current and gcc 4.x Message-ID: <1119481534.2853.6.camel@server.mcneil.com> In-Reply-To: <20050622225201.GA8836@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <42B409A7.5020909@mail.uni-mainz.de> <42B417C7.80904@samsco.org> <20050619043539.GA46516@dragon.NUXI.org> <20050622221942.GA36733@xor.obsecurity.org> <1119479108.2709.3.camel@server.mcneil.com> <20050622225201.GA8836@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 15:52 -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 03:25:08PM -0700, Sean McNeil wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 18:19 -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > > > > The ABI breakage at numerous points early in the GCC 3.x branch was > > > extremely disruptive. > > > > This is the amd64 mailing list, so I assume you are talking about amd64 > > machines and I thought the architecture wasn't really supported before > > GCC 3.x. In any event, I doubt there would be any such disruption > > between 3.x and 4.x. The amd64 ABI is pretty solid now, correct? > > > > The machine description for amd64 may not have changed. > The ABI breakage may have occurred at the shared library > level. GCC is preparing an early release of 4.0.1 in part > to address breakage where KDE does not work correctly and/or > can't even be compiled with 4.0.0. Interesting. Wonder if it is just a C++ ABI breakage (which happens often) or something more fundamental. I think it has been said before that the FreeBSD folks prefer to wait several "dot" revisions after ".0" before looking into a switch for just these kinds of reasons. Sean
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1119481534.2853.6.camel>