This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

gcc-3.2 C++ ABI and packaging c++ libraries [was Re: [ITP]: BerkeleyDB v3.1]

Corinna Vinschen wrote:

AFAICS, the packaging is ok so I've uploaded it.

A certain someone [who wishes to go unnamed] e-mailed me last night and informed me about the potential incompatibilities in the C++ ABI that will be introduced when gcc-3.2 [formerly gcc-3.1.2] goes gold and how that would relate to the C++ API libraries released with db v3 and v4. Now this package's c++ library has been compiled with g++-2 since libtool refuses to link to in the new g++-3.1.1-4. This certain someone suggested that I rebuild the proposed packages with only the C libraries and then wait until gcc-3.2 is released, at which time I should rebuild all the versions with the c++ library and rerelease them. I think this is a good idea, too. So, I will prepare some new tarballs to replace the ones just uploaded. Two questions though:

A)Should I bump the package version or just leave it as is [considiering it hasn't been announced yet]?

B)If possible, I'd like to know what the tentative plan might be for the gcc-3.x release. Are we going to stick with gcc-3.1.1 for awhile or are we going to dive into gcc-3.2? In either case, roughly when would you like to have the new gcc go gold?

I believe the second question should be on the minds of anyone who is maintaining or plans to maintain a package with c++ libraries. Correct me if I am wrong.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]