On 22/07/12 17:24, Allan McRae wrote: > On 22/07/12 17:17, Eric Bélanger wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 1:21 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> gcc-4.7 introduced some c++11 support, but unfortunately this resulted >>> in a changed ABI for files compiled with c++98/03 support and those >>> complied with c++11. So, if a library used c++11 but linked to a >>> library using c++98, there could be crashes due to incompatibilities >>> between these. >>> >>> The gcc-4.7.1-5 package uses a snapshot with the needed patches to fix >>> this issue. However, c++11 code compiled with any earlier 4.7.x version >>> possibly be incompatible with c++11 code compiled with gcc-4.7.1-5 and >>> above and anything compiled with c++98/03. >>> >>> I have created a TODO list that includes everything linking to >>> libstdc++.so and that was built since gcc-4.7.0 entered the repos. It >>> is a big list, but only software that used --std=c++11 when compiling >>> need recompiled. Look at your build output (you do keep the logs for >>> future reference...) and decide if your package needs recompiled or not. >>> >>> More details: >>> http://jaegerandi.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/gcc-47-c-abi-changes-and-opensuse-122.html >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=a245605f >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=commit;h=74ca4097 >> >> I noticed that you pushed the new gcc in the [testing] repo whereas >> rebuilds are usually done in [staging]. Is that wanted? If so, does >> the rebuilded packages go in [testing] repo? >> > > Packages that are broken are already broken... I don't even intend to > wait for the rebuild to be finished to move gcc to [core]. >
Just to clarify, rebuilt packages should go in [testing] until gcc is signed off and moved. Allan
