On Saturday 08 October 2011 18:57:23 James Cloos wrote:
> > "SV" == Sven Vermeulen writes:
> SV> - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds
> SV> from that version onwards should not be needed
>
> That is not generally true.
>
> I use gcc-4.5 as my system gcc, but
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:35 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "MT" == Matt Turner writes:
>
> MT> Is that a problem with the ABI, or just that gcc-4.6 is more strict?
> MT> I think it's the latter.
>
> The failure occurs at the linking stage, not the compiling stage.
>
> Ie, ln(1) cannot find some of
> "MT" == Matt Turner writes:
MT> Is that a problem with the ABI, or just that gcc-4.6 is more strict?
MT> I think it's the latter.
The failure occurs at the linking stage, not the compiling stage.
Ie, ln(1) cannot find some of the symbols it needs if the .so was
compiled with 4.5 and the .
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:57 PM, James Cloos wrote:
>> "SV" == Sven Vermeulen writes:
>
> SV> - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds
> SV> from that version onwards should not be needed
>
> That is not generally true.
>
> I use gcc-4.5 as my system gcc, but mostl
> "SV" == Sven Vermeulen writes:
SV> - Since 3.4.0/4.1.0, the C++ ABI is forward-compatible, so rebuilds
SV> from that version onwards should not be needed
That is not generally true.
I use gcc-4.5 as my system gcc, but mostly use 4.6 when building things
outside of portage. I still run
Hi guys
There is some FUD regarding GCC upgrades and I don't have the proper
knowledge to write a correct document on GCC upgrades. As you are currently
aware, we have a GCC upgrade guide [1], but it has seen its last update in
2008. Since then, things have undoubtedly changed.
What I can find on
