Michael VanLoon <michaelv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 6/5/08 7:15 AM, "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Probably. The multi-vendor C++ ABI made this a lot better, but there are >>> still incompatibilities. We don't break ABI compatibility on release >>> branches, >>> so you can safely assume that 3.4.2 is compatible with 3.4.1. >> >> And across release branches, it is worth knowing about the >> -fabi-version option. >> >> Ian > > That's very cool! I notice that gcc 4.0.1 (Darwin) gives the option of > versions 0 through 2, where 2 is gcc 3.4 ABI version. Does this mean that > gcc 4 uses the ABI from gcc 3.4? Yes. > Would this mean a library built with gcc > 3.4.6, containing non-templatized C++ class interfaces, would successfully > link into code built with gcc 4, especially if I specified -fabi-version=2? Yes. Ian
