From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN, DMARC_MISSING,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from dhcp101047.res-hall.nwu.edu (adsl-66-73-199-62.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net [66.73.199.62]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4F97AC5A6; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:44:21 -0500 (CDT) Received: by dhcp101047.res-hall.nwu.edu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7D099F5C36; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:44:20 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:44:20 -0500 From: "Matthew J. Turk" To: Doug Goldstein Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2 Message-ID: <20020728174420.GA11994@dhcp101047.res-hall.nwu.edu> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Goldstein , gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <20020728050711.GB5651@dhcp101047.res-hall.nwu.edu> <200207281244.45546.verwilst@gentoo.org> <3D43F0B5.9030203@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D43F0B5.9030203@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-OS: Gentoo GNU/Linux www.gentoo.org X-GNU: www.gnu.org X-Avoid-Mailer: Outlook X-Gentoo: www.gentoo.org Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 9c66f8d0-5e4f-499f-a330-93cb74072891 X-Archives-Hash: 09e9f9a55d03de692bc0dbc4a5add0e4 > 3.2 is labeled by GNU to be 100% multi-vender compliant with the C++ ABI > now. Which is the core prob with the new gcc releases. By skipping > straight to 3.2 we'll avoid 2 problem transitions.. 1 from 2.95 to 3.1 > and then from 3.1/3.1.1 to 3.2 instead we'll have 2.95 to 3.2. The GCC Page (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/changes.html) says it is MultiVendor V3 compatible - does that mean that it's compatible (again) with 2.95? There aren't any other changes listed on the page, so does that also mean that no changes in code are required from 3.1 to 3.2 to compile? Will this just mean going from 2.95 to 3.2 will be a matter of fixing the ISO C/C++ standards, just as for going from 2.95 to 3.0? mjt --------------------------------------------------- Matthew J. Turk ICQ: 3856787 "Music is the Best." - FZ thecatfishman.org http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~mjt631/spamoff.htm