On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 01:17:15PM +0000, Xavier Bertou wrote:
> > The reputation of being binary incompatible is mostly based on rumors: it
> > affects only dynamicly linked C++ code; and this same incompatibility
> > exists between egcs-1.1.2 and gcc-2.95, and will exist between gcc-2.95
> > and gcc-3.0.
>
> What about gcc-2.96 -> 3.0 ? Did these $^@$%$!$ again change the mangling
> so that there is once again this incompatibility ?
I believe for C++ it will be incompatible.
> I do not like the way you say "mostly based on rumors". I don't know what
> percentage of the people who use gcc use it for C++, but nowadays, a lot
> of people do C++, and you nearly always use dynamic libraries. So it is
> not such a side-effect as gcc developers tend to say.
Code produced for C++ is like this:
egcs is not compatible with gcc 2.95.x. gcc 2.95.x is not compile with
gcc 2.96. gcc 2.96 is not compatible with gcc 3.0.
End of story. We have distributed egcs and gcc 2.95 before, we had
incompatibility, why are you worrying so much?
--
Geoffrey Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
李長風
http://www.wychk.org/~glee
$ /usr/games/fortune
Anything that can go wrong will go
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
$
