From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Berlin To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Revised C++ ABI abstraction patches Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 06:46:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <3AB0CF0B.746EFDD6@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00225.html No need, it can be auto-detected. I just sent jim my revised revised revised patch, whic, among other things, lets you switch between the ABI's on the fly. I have one more function that needs abstracting before i submit it to gdb-patches. --Dan On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Fernando Nasser wrote: > What about a configuration option --with-v3abi (or something of a > sort)? > > Default no for 5.1, default on afterwards. > > Fernando > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > On Thu, 15 Mar 2001, Jim Blandy wrote: > > > > > They're not fit to be applied yet, since we don't yet automatically > > > detect whether the executable uses the V3 or V2 ABI. > > > > If it's important for users to be able to support the new ABI, you could > > add a command which tells GDB which ABI to expect, no? > > > > > * cp-abi-gnu-v2.c (gnu_v2_destructor_prefix_p, > > [...] > > > (gnu-v3-abi.o): Add. > > > (gnu-v2-abi.o): Add. > > > > So what is it: cp-abi-gnu-v2 or gnu-v2-abi? I prefer the latter, and I > > thought that was the conclusion of the earlier discussions about that. > > -- > Fernando Nasser > Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com > 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 > Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9 >