incubator-stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: ABI problem on Darwin (was: Re: [VOTE] stdcxx 4.2.1 release)
Date Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:46:20 GMT
 
The workaround is to remove the link flags for version info (i.e.
-compatibility_version and -current_version) from the file
etc/config/gcc.config.  This takes care of the runtime link error.

There are some other link flags that could/should probably be added
(e.g. -Wl,-undefined, -Wl,dynamic_lookup, -Wl,-single_module) but
that's a post-4.2.1 change.  I'd also to figure out why the version
info flags were working before now at some point.

Brad.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:msebor@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin Sebor
> Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:45 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: ABI problem on Darwin (was: Re: [VOTE] stdcxx 4.2.1 release)
> 
> I see three options for how to deal with the ABI breakage on
> Darwin:
> 
>    1) fix/revert the change that causes the ABI breakage,
>       create new release candidate, and start a new vote, or
> 
>    2) document the breakage and a workaround in the README,
>       create a new release candidate, and start a new vote, or
> 
>    3) open an issue for the ABI breakage, document how to work
>       around it, but release -rc-3 unchanged.
> 
> If the problem is due to STDCXX-488 (1) should be pretty easy
> to do and we could start the vote as early as tomorrow night,
> and that would be my preference. Assuming the fix is isolated
> to gcc/Darwin specific areas of the build infrastructure the
> amount of re-testing would be small.
> 
> If it isn't easily fixable or if the fix is risky, we could
> do (2) and still get the vote going by the end of tomorrow.
> Fixing a README is trivial so the amount of retesting would
> be minimal.
> 
> I'm not wild about option (3) because it goes against our
> binary compatibility policy but given that Darwin is a best
> effort platform I could be convinced to go with it if none
> of the other alternatives was viable. It also is the most
> expeditious approach.
> 
> Let me know your thoughts.
> 
> Martin Sebor wrote:
> > Eric Lemings wrote:
> >>
> >> On Apr 28, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> >>> Does this mean that stdcxx 4.2.1 isn't binary compatible with
> >>> 4.2.0 on Darwin or that there is a problem with a dependency
> >>> on some system library or something like that? (I can't tell
> >>> for sure from the output you pasted below.) Either way, is
> >>> this something new? (I don't recall it being mentioned when
> >>> we did our binary compatibility testing two weeks ago.)
> >>
> >> It's most likely a problem with the way the library is built.
> > 
> > Could STDCXX-488 have something to do with it?
> >   http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-488
> > 
> >>
> >> The first time I saw it was a couple weeks ago while 
> testing binary 
> >> compatibility.
> > 
> > And you waited to mention it until now because...?
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message