On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Easwaran Raman <era...@google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Paolo Carlini > <paolo.carl...@oracle.com> wrote: >> On 12/12/2011 09:37 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the comments Paolo. I have attached the new patch. I have >>> bumped the version to 3.4.18 >> >> You shouldn't: 4.7 is not out yet, thus no reason to increase the minor >> version beyond the current 17. > Ok, I then don't understand your comment > "Note that backporting the patch as-is to 4_6-branch would be very > wrong in terms of ABI (in mainline we already have a 3.4.17)". > My original patch added the new symbol in version 3.4.17. Since we > don't want to add the symbol to 3.4.16 (if we have a situation where > the new runtime is not available when running a program compiled with > -fsized-delete) and you said I shouldn't be using 3.4.17, I assumed > I had to bump up the version. > >> >>> and used _ZdlPv[jmy] in gnu.ver. I have >>> also added the symbol to baseline_symbols.txt of other targets. >> >> You should not, just read again what I wrote. And you don't have to believe >> me: just browse the libstdc++ ChangeLogs and see if somebody ever does that >> when the linker map is touched. > > Sorry, I again misunderstood this as well (and still don't have a good > picture). Is the part which adds _ZdlPv[jmy] in gnu.ver ok? I added > that by mimicking the symbol _Znw[jmy] found in the same file. From > the log, it looks like the baseline_symbols.txt seems to be generated, > but I am not sure how that is to be done. For example, r145437 says a > bunch of these baseline_symbols.txt are regenerated, but I don't see > any other change from which this might be generated. > > Thanks, > Easwaran
It looks like running 'make new-abi-baseline' under TARGET/libstdc++-v3/testsuite generates the baseline file. Should I check in that? What about other targets? Thanks, Easwaran > >> Paolo.
