On Wednesday 19 October 2005 13:50, Asif Lodhi wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On 10/18/05, Martin Costabel <costabel at wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > Craig Ringer wrote: > > > Be really, really glad for a shared libc and common compiler on Linux. > > > > Except that C++ from gcc-3.1, gcc-3.3, gcc-4.0 are binary incompatible. > > You can even, by using the -fabi option, produce binary incompatible > > code from one and the same gcc compiler... > > But I think C++ developers should be happy if C++ compiler is becoming > more standards compliant. Further, if the binary incompatible code > generated by the newer gcc versions is faster then one can > optimistically hope that overtime much C++ code will get converted to > reflect the C++ ISO standard and recompiled to deliver faster > high-performance software. I guess this ABI stuff is a temporary > make-shift for those apps that have been compiled with the newer gcc > versions and have to maintain compatibility with software components > compiled with the earlier gcc versions. > > My earlier question: Does anyone know about the company that embarked > on an effort to completely revamp the gcc so that subsequently > re-compiled Linux & related software runs _much_ faster? I did > bookmark the page but somehow I have lost it & can't find it now. I > would be thankful if you guys could give me related links.
I do not think that the C++ standards specifies the ABI, and this leads to repeated attempts to produce better and better ABIs each of which leads to this kind of incompatibility. David > > Sorry for another off-topic post. > > -- > Thanks and regards, > > Asif > _______________________________________________ > Scribus mailing list > Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de > http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/mailman/listinfo/scribus
