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?Received on Fri Jul 30 2004 - 16:13:16 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:04 UTC