The workaround is to remove the link flags for version info (i.e. -compatibility_version and -current_version) from the file etc/config/gcc.config. This takes care of the runtime link error.
There are some other link flags that could/should probably be added (e.g. -Wl,-undefined, -Wl,dynamic_lookup, -Wl,-single_module) but that's a post-4.2.1 change. I'd also to figure out why the version info flags were working before now at some point. Brad. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:45 PM > To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org > Subject: ABI problem on Darwin (was: Re: [VOTE] stdcxx 4.2.1 release) > > I see three options for how to deal with the ABI breakage on > Darwin: > > 1) fix/revert the change that causes the ABI breakage, > create new release candidate, and start a new vote, or > > 2) document the breakage and a workaround in the README, > create a new release candidate, and start a new vote, or > > 3) open an issue for the ABI breakage, document how to work > around it, but release -rc-3 unchanged. > > If the problem is due to STDCXX-488 (1) should be pretty easy > to do and we could start the vote as early as tomorrow night, > and that would be my preference. Assuming the fix is isolated > to gcc/Darwin specific areas of the build infrastructure the > amount of re-testing would be small. > > If it isn't easily fixable or if the fix is risky, we could > do (2) and still get the vote going by the end of tomorrow. > Fixing a README is trivial so the amount of retesting would > be minimal. > > I'm not wild about option (3) because it goes against our > binary compatibility policy but given that Darwin is a best > effort platform I could be convinced to go with it if none > of the other alternatives was viable. It also is the most > expeditious approach. > > Let me know your thoughts. > > Martin Sebor wrote: > > Eric Lemings wrote: > >> > >> On Apr 28, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: > >>> Does this mean that stdcxx 4.2.1 isn't binary compatible with > >>> 4.2.0 on Darwin or that there is a problem with a dependency > >>> on some system library or something like that? (I can't tell > >>> for sure from the output you pasted below.) Either way, is > >>> this something new? (I don't recall it being mentioned when > >>> we did our binary compatibility testing two weeks ago.) > >> > >> It's most likely a problem with the way the library is built. > > > > Could STDCXX-488 have something to do with it? > > http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-488 > > > >> > >> The first time I saw it was a couple weeks ago while > testing binary > >> compatibility. > > > > And you waited to mention it until now because...? > > > > > >
