From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ABI incompatibilities with MinGW GCC 4.7.0 Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 09:59:47 +0300 Message-ID: <83txylt1gc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ipf2ustm.fsf@gnu.org> <87d359uqn7.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1339225192 14235 80.91.229.3 (9 Jun 2012 06:59:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 06:59:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jason Rumney Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 09 08:59:51 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SdFeI-0006cy-VN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:59:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57687 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SdFeI-0004UM-Q2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:59:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58412) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SdFeF-0004UG-Uu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:59:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SdFeE-0004Gi-5p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:59:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:56847) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SdFeD-0004Gc-U7; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 02:59:46 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M5C00M008M88O00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 09:59:43 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M5C00LTI8RJV860@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 09:59:43 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87d359uqn7.fsf@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:150848 Archived-At: > From: Jason Rumney > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:10:20 +0800 > > Has anyone actually tried? I don't know. I didn't. I still hope that the MinGW GCC maintainer will respond to the thread with the authoritative information about the ABI changes. > As far as I can see, it should only affect interfaces that use bitfields, and > C++. That's the only specific ABI changes mentioned in the announcement, yes. But the announcement said "in particular", which might mean there are other incompatible ABI changes; my question about that did not get any responses except "don't know". In addition, the MinGW GCC maintainer said in a GCC forum that there are other ABI incompatibilities beyond the bitfields, which he will publish "later"; AFAICS, that didn't happen yet. > All the libraries that Emacs uses are Free software, so can be > rebuilt with the same compiler if neccesary. Of course. But if the incompatibilities are real, and cannot be removed by using some compiler switches, it would mean that we will need 2 incompatible versions of each library, and will have to cope with bugs caused by users who install the wrong version.