On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 15:50 -0500, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 09:47:25PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > gcc-4.1.0-0.27 > > > -------------- > > > > > * Tue Feb 14 2006 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx> 4.1.0-0.26 > > > - update from gcc-4_1-branch (-r110903:110978) > > > - PRs fortran/20861, fortran/20871, fortran/25059, fortran/25070, > > > fortran/25083, fortran/25088, fortran/25103, fortran/26038, > > > fortran/26074, inline-asm/16194, libfortran/24685, > > > libfortran/25425, target/26141, tree-optimization/26258 > > > - ABI change - revert to GCC 3.3 and earlier behaviour of > > > zero sized bitfields in packed structs (Michael Matz, PR middle-end/22275) > > > > Do I read this correctly - ABI change? > > Yes. > > > The whole FC5 mass rebuilds were in vain? > > No, packed structures containing zero width bitfields are extremely rare. OK, nevertheless, something to keep an eye on. Should somebody find such a struct in a core part of a central library (very low level packages (kernel, glibc, drivers) or GUI-toolskits seem likely candidates, to me), .... > And if something really cared about the exact layout of those structures, > it wouldn't rely on this, as GCC < 3.4 behavior differed from 3.4/4.0. This shouldn't matter here, because the rebuild was initiated by the GCC 4.0->4.1 transition. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
