Re: Compiler ABI changes and XPCOM components

Pierre Phaneuf wrote:
> Doug Turner wrote:
> 
> 
>>>There is nothing XPCOM can do about this. Different C++
>>>Compilers mangle function names differently, so that a
>>>gcc3-compiled Plugin will expect a different function name
>>>from what actually exists on a gcc2-compiled Mozilla.
>>
>>exactly!
> 
> Almost, but not quite exactly. Mangling has very little effect for XPCOM
> interfaces, but virtual method table layout has. Specifically, the few
> places where mangling could have any effect are probably ordinary
> functions rather than methods and could be protected with a "C" linkage.

I don't think that we were talking about vtable layout here.  My next 
sentence was "...that most, if not all, components that I have looked at 
do import something from xpcom."

> A number of compilers have options to make virtual method tables follow
> the Microsoft COM layout (which is documented in the COM Specification),
> so I suppose that Mozilla should use these options as much as possible
> (it is usually an attribute that you give to a parent-less class and
> which is inherited).

Is there a option for this in gcc?  bbaetz?


Doug Turner