> That's not possible - it's not only the dependency on libstdc++, it's > the whole ABI issue; exceptions (thankfully not used in the BeOS API - > for that matter), RTTI, vtable, name mangling, etc. > If we compile our version of libbe.so with gcc 3.2, we can't run any of > the old programs anymore - which is what we aim for. Of course, we > could take our sources and build the whole OS with gcc 3.2, but then we > have lost binary compatibility. Right so the distrubuted code should be w/ old gcc. This is totally understood by all. However, there are some minor api changes in gcc 3.2 as well. Code I compliled w/ 2.95 (non-beos) didn't work w/ gcc-3.2 perfectly. This is bad code on my part. I feel that code should _compile_ under both 2.95 and gcc-3.2 and be released w/ old gcc, of course. If you target gcc-3.2 your code should automatically work under old gcc as newer gcc is less tolerant of sloppy code. > That's the way we wanted to do it later - but we can switch at any > time, it's not that we must change before R1 ships. We only have to Switching will be more difficult if code isn't tested on gcc-3.2. > I really think 2.95.3 is sufficient, we might also want to have a look > at what patches are around for that gcc, too (i.e. at cygnus). > We may want to compile the kernel with gcc 3.2 later, but there is no > reason to hurry. Again, I agree, all release should be w/ old compiler. It should be correct enough to compile on gcc-3.2 flawlessly (not that you'd do that yet). Fred Ollinger