Re: gcc ABI compliance (was: Re: Memory Mangement Problem in 5.1-RELEASE)

From: Narvi <narvi_at_haldjas.folklore.ee>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 20:36:28 +0300 (EEST)
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Alexander Leidinger wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 23:22:00 -0700
> Terry Lambert <tlambert2_at_mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > Didn't the GNU people say they had to change it to be more ABI compliant
> > > with the 'standard'?
> >
> > I will believe that when they upgrade their FORTRAN compiler
> > to be more compliant with 'the standard'.
> >
> > Some standards are not worth complying with; I still have yet
> > to see anyone tell me exactly what the practical benefit of
> > doing this is.
>
> When X (X > 1) compilers comply to the same ABI standard, I can mix the
> results of those compilers (if I see a benefit to do so).
>
> As we have icc in the ports collection and the base system is compiled
> with gcc and I want to be able to link to gcc compiled libs with icc, I
> appreciate the effort of the involved parties to try to comply to a
> common ABI standard.
>

That might be so over in your reality, but over in this really there is
tonns of paisn due to the changes and changing libstdc++.so major. Lets
not get into "promises" about ABI stability

> Bye,
> Alexander.
>
> --
>                I believe the technical term is "Oops!"
>
> http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net
>   GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Received on Tue Aug 05 2003 - 08:36:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:17 UTC