[mudmonkey]

From:

GCC 3.2 Changes

The C++ ABI from 3.1 to 3.2 has changed AGAIN! So, now for Jaguar, C++ programs have to be recompiled with 3.1, then, once we move again to 3.2, another recompile.

Anyone know if they (GNU) will finally settle on an ABI for C++?

Are the implications of all of these ABI changes not as serious as the appear to be to me? I am under the belief that our currently executing C++ code (compiled under GCC 2.95.2) won't properly execute under Jaguar... (I don't have 10.2 yet to try it)

Thanks for any info!

[tobli]

I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think it's that bad. First of all, apps compiled with gcc 2.95 should, and do, run on 10.2. The difference between different ABIs become important, in my understanding, when linking. This is the reason that C++ object files generally aren't compatible between compilers from different vendors. If your C++ application is linking with external code, you have to make sure that the libraries are compiled using the same compiler (or rather using the same ABI). One of the positive things about gcc 3.2 seems to be that vendors have finally agreed on a common and stable standard ABI, so the probability for future ABI changes is much smaller after this.

[mudmonkey]

Originally posted by tobli:
I'm certainly no expert, but I don't think it's that bad. First of all, apps compiled with gcc 2.95 should, and do, run on 10.2. The difference between different ABIs become important, in my understanding, when linking. This is the reason that C++ object files generally aren't compatible between compilers from different vendors. If your C++ application is linking with external code, you have to make sure that the libraries are compiled using the same compiler (or rather using the same ABI). One of the positive things about gcc 3.2 seems to be that vendors have finally agreed on a common and stable standard ABI, so the probability for future ABI changes is much smaller after this.

Thank you for the information. That is my problem, however, is that I am afraid that programs that are dynamically linked to system libraries (libstdc++, etc.) will have a problem...

I think that this is what many in the fink team are running into; although, I'm not sure.

I hope that Apple can move to GCC 3.2, as, I have heard of numerous serious problems with 3.1 (not just on OS X).

[gorgonzola]

Read this:

http://lists.apple.com/mhonarc/darwi.../msg15337.html

Login/pass is archives/archives. Stan Shebs maintains GCC for Apple, in case you didn't know.

[mudmonkey]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
Read this:

Very interesting. Thank you for the reference! That answers most of the concerns.

Thanks.