From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 24 07:59:24 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C62E16A4CF for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:59:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailout.informatik.tu-muenchen.de (mailout.informatik.tu-muenchen.de [131.159.0.5]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2ADF43D48 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 07:59:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from barner@in.tum.de) Received: by zi025.glhnet.mhn.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D732E969E; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:03 +0100 From: Simon Barner To: Palle Girgensohn Message-ID: <20040124155503.GA4157@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> References: <85300000.1074954024@palle.girgensohn.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <85300000.1074954024@palle.girgensohn.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at informatik.tu-muenchen.de cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: g++-3.3.x & g++-2.95.x? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:59:24 -0000 --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > If I'd like to use it as standard c/c++ compiler for building ports. Will= =20 > the change in the ABI between gcc-2.95.x and gcc-3.x make things fail=20 > unless I rebuild all ports that use C++? If you decide to use gcc-3.3.3 as your standard ports compiler, I'd definitively recommend to rebuild all your ports from scratch. IMO, if you try to rebuild only those C++ ports that have linker problems, you will end up in an unimaginable mess. It's also a good occasion to get rid of unnecessary ports ;-) > I've read somewhere about this,=20 > but I can't find it now. Problem would be that the change in the ABI woul= d=20 > make old binaries, built with gcc-2.95.x, unable to link with new=20 > libraries, built with gcc-3.x. Yes, because they change the name mangling for (virtual?) methods. Be it as it may, it's not compatible. Simon --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAEpVXCkn+/eutqCoRAsAeAKDYoORrdpoI2NVaVK70Q6WApuSIVwCgr5NN O3E94jJl8oJBS9Y8tAqellE= =lEKj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz--