Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:55:03 +0100 From: Simon Barner <barner@in.tum.de> To: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: g++-3.3.x & g++-2.95.x? Message-ID: <20040124155503.GA4157@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> In-Reply-To: <85300000.1074954024@palle.girgensohn.se> References: <85300000.1074954024@palle.girgensohn.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040124155503.GA4157>