[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: g++ 3.0



Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:

> g++-3.0 is a big step, and when it becomes the default compiler,
> there will be a transition plan. "Just build random packages with
> 3.0" is not a transition plan.

I don't think we need a transition plan for packages not using C++
libraries. Some of these will surely not compile (the mips porters get
hit by these bugs, anyway), but the others are IMO fair game.

We do need a plan for C++ libraries and their dependees, that's for
sure. Maybe conflicts are enought, maybe we need something like the
glibc affair.

Note that libqt3, a rather prominent example of a C++ library, already
uses the g++ 3 ABI on Alpha (and maybe other random platforms, too).
Every qt program that does not special-case alpha to g++ 3 is broken
right now...

> Who's to say that building with g++-3.0 on i386 will not introduce
> new bugs?

Nobody. But nobody guarantees that for gcc 2.95.17, either. So I
wouldn't overly worry about that. Maintainers should be able to test
their packages for such regressions. Since you can have multiple gcc
versions on the same machine, these are easier to find out than arch
bugs.

-- 
Robbe

Attachment: signature.ng
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: