On 2005-04-18, David R. Morrison wrote: > Hi Martin. > > I had been very puzzled by those missing symbol problems, so I'm glad > you figured it out. The timing is excellent, because we haven't pushed > -fabi-version=1 into stable yet, or fully committed ourselves to the > Tiger upgrade strategy which uses it. > > However, this discovery leaves us completely without a strategy for the > Tiger upgrade. The only one I can imagine at the moment is to force > users to run gcc_select=3.3 when running under the 10.4-transitional > tree, and later having them run gcc_select=4 when switching to the 10.4 > tree. Not a great strategy; maybe somebody will come up with a better > one.
Well, here's a suggestion: Does -fabi-version=1 work correctly under gcc4? Does it -actually- generate gcc3 compatible binaries? If so, could we set -fabi-version=1 for gcc4 machines? We'd probably want to just put this in the buildscript, that would avoid problems with SetCC and SetCXX. We'd put these bits before ./configure: test "x$CC" = "x" && export CC=gcc test "x$CXX" = "x" && export CXX=g++ test `$CC --version | head -n1 | cut -d " " -f3` = "4.0" && export CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -fabi-version=1" test `$CXX --version | head -n1 | cut -d " " -f3` = "4.0" && export CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -fabi-version=1" It's quite ugly. Probably uglier than just using gcc_select. But it's a suggestion. crh
pgphoIsojSiWH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
