Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | At 02:44 AM 7/3/2003, Giovanni Bajo wrote: | | >On Friday, July 04, 2003 12:38 AM [GMT+1=CET], | >David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | >>> On the other hand if your native compiler is GCC and your system was | >>> not configured with that setting, then you may get into trouble -- | >>> since you'll be mixing translation units with different ABIs. | >> | >> Furthermore, that sounds like a workaround. Isn't it still a | >> compiler bug that it doesn't work without -fabi-version=0? | > | >No, it's correctly fixed, but since it's a fix that breaks ABI, the | >version number was bumbed. By default, GCC 3.3 uses the GCC 3.2 ABI. | >If you want to | >activate the new version, you have to explicitally say so. | >"-fabi-version=0" always selects the last version of the ABI. | | So are you are saying we should add "-fabi-version=0"?
If you do that unconditionally, you may get ABI incompatible libraries/programs compared to what your system come with. The default ABI version for GCC-3.3.x is 1. You might want to set it to 2 and see what happens (for GCC-3.3.x) -- some bugs are fixed in -fabi-version=2. This whole thing (-fabi-version) is messy. It is what one gets by taking users for beta testers ;-) -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
