http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html
* The binary incompatibility issues are not as bad as some people and companies make you believe. First of all, they affect dynamically linked C++ code only. If you don't use C++, you aren't affected. If you use C++ and link statically, you aren't affected. If you don't mind depending on a current glibc, you might also want to link statically to c++ libraries while linking dynamically to glibc and other C libraries you're using: g++ -o test test.cc -Wl,-Bstatic -lstdc++ -Wl,-Bdynamic (Thanks to Pavel Roskin for pointing this out) Second, the same issues appear with every major release of gcc so far. gcc 2.7.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.8.x. gcc 2.8.x C++ is not binary compatible with egcs 1.0.x. egcs 1.0.x C++ is not binary compatible with egcs 1.1.x. egcs 1.1.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.95. gcc 2.95 C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 3.0. Care compatibilitate binara intre versiuni ? Cioby On Lu, 2002-01-21 at 19:41, bodhi wrote: > Dumitru Ciobarcianu wrote: > > > Tocmai erori de acest gen au facut pe unii sa sara in sus de cur cum ca > > gcc-ul de la redhat este buggy cand de fapt el doar respecta > > standardele. > > > > Cioby > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html > > Current snapshots of GCC, and any version labeled 2.96, produce object > files that are not compatible with those produced by either GCC 2.95.2 > or the forthcoming GCC 3.0. Therefore, programs built with these > snapshots will not be compatible with any official GCC release. > > Care standarde? > Bodhi > > --- > Send e-mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with 'unsubscribe rlug' to > unsubscribe from this list. --- Send e-mail to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with 'unsubscribe rlug' to unsubscribe from this list.
