X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=tzgRyVhEE8lT6UV9
	YA8aK2dwmMxPIfwkSaQ8qxD5bv8vU9W1zmvgyShEisTZ0KSamSjorHiyKWAMwVy5
	05x9LAmAqnNniObOcsenX+GCXPjJ1SrgBTOcARSgBzGX4Jp6Xu65AP9ByeT5KQ2p
	l4ICaZrrgY1UFdpk9kVIYt572Ho=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=Cid2npk2pGpT3vqlpaTRVT
	27mFE=; b=rE+UsK63nddj/RIFqj0Vf0G/gxgpcdDnE3V4v7AVT1SLQ9NZFAQUVT
	M25yyPbvCxuMQwC8xZlChPPfsqUAP6fAgmGYRnOoP/tlXmmYE6E1Cx5KYsYvL9Zc
	tZ6VXa51rGhCHysCBbb3/RzZSd39xa5VfQeY6LPSnxYiM8wvRk7Cc=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_COUK,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: out.ipsmtp3nec.opaltelecom.net
X-SMTPAUTH: drstacey AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2HPAQA0SBRW/yJf0lUNUYN7b8APIYV0AwICgXkQAQEBAQEBAQODWTwBAQEBAQEjAg1fAQEEIwQRQBELGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFEwgBAYg3qyRxlC4BAQgCAR+BIopPhRQXglKBRQWSTYM3hRiKHox4jFc4hC6JLQEBAQ
X-IPAS-Result: A2HPAQA0SBRW/yJf0lUNUYN7b8APIYV0AwICgXkQAQEBAQEBAQODWTwBAQEBAQEjAg1fAQEEIwQRQBELGAICBRYLAgIJAwIBAgFFEwgBAYg3qyRxlC4BAQgCAR+BIopPhRQXglKBRQWSTYM3hRiKHox4jFc4hC6JLQEBAQ
Subject: Re: Updated: gcc-5.2.0-1 (Test x86/x86_64)
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <560BC46D DOT 3060500 AT gmail DOT com> <560C0863 DOT 70505 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <560C6369 DOT 7060602 AT gmail DOT com> <560C71FB DOT 4030005 AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk> <560D2F6D DOT 90608 AT gmail DOT com> <5613F632 DOT 1080205 AT t-online DOT de>
From: David Stacey <drstacey AT tiscali DOT co DOT uk>
Message-ID: <56144922.9020208@tiscali.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 23:20:18 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5613F632.1080205@t-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On 06/10/15 17:26, Christian Franke wrote:
> cyg Simple wrote:
>> On 9/30/2015 7:36 PM, David Stacey wrote:
>>> On 30/09/15 23:34, JonY wrote:
>>>> On 10/1/2015 00:05, David Stacey wrote:
>>>>> On 30/09/15 12:15, JonY wrote:
>>>>>> gcc-5.2.0-1 has been uploaded for 32bit and 64bit Cygwin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is the first series of the 5.x releases, and should be 
>>>>>> considered
>>>>>> as experimental as such.
>>>>> Have you managed to work around the ABI change in gcc-5 [1], or will
>>>>> this require a mass rebuild at the point gcc-5 becomes 'current'?
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] -http://developerblog.redhat.com/2015/02/05/gcc5-and-the-c11-abi/
>>>> As far as I know, every gcc release will break C++ ABI, so it would 
>>>> mean
>>>> rebuilding everything C++.
>>> According to the Red Hat blog above, the last time g++ caused an ABI
>>> change was back in the 3.x days, so it hasn't happened for a while. Ah
>>> well, we have maintainers for most packages in Cygwin, so we'll have to
>>> co-ordinate a rebuild.
>> Regardless, JonY is correct.  Every C++ release, regardless of the
>> vendor, causes an ABI break with shared libraries and the naming of the
>> object elements (mangled names).
>
> Probably not in this 4.X -> 5.X case. Otherwise the new 
> cygstdc++-6.dll should IMO be renamed to -6.1, -7 or similar.

Bumping the DLL number wouldn't necessarily fix the problem. You'd still 
run into conflicts if one executable loaded two DLLs, each linked 
against different versions of libstdc++.

Dave.


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple