Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:12:53 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Paul Seniura <pdseniura@techie.com> Subject: Re: about the gcc 3.4.x problems Message-ID: <410A8FA5.4070008@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20040729174420.GA9911@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20040729144205.6ABEF5CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> <20040729164738.523C85CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> <20040729174420.GA9911@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan Nelson wrote: [ ... ] > In general, C++ object files are not portable across different gcc releases, > since they fix ABI bugs in every release. Code built with 3.4 may not link > to an old 3.3 libstdc++, thus the dependency on the port's own libstdc++. I > don't see a problem here. I see a problem with C++ object files not being portable from release to release, but you're certainly right that it's not a new problem or one designed to bedevil Paul Seniura in particular. :-) I was going to suggest to Paul that if you run into problems when something changes, using cvsup and a date specification to track down the specific timeframe when something broke can be quite helpful. It also means that you can update back a few days (um, "backdate"?) to a system which was working until the problem gets fixed. However, I don't know whether CTM or whatever it was lets you do that. -- -Chuck PS: I suppose that asking why GCC keeps changing how it does C++ symbol name mangling ought to be discussed on a GCC forum, but considering that FreeBSD keeps a vendor branch, why don't the maintainers choose not import changes which break the C++ ABI into the FreeBSD version of GCC?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?410A8FA5.4070008>