Re: Next C++ transition
Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> writes:
>> The soname of libstdc++ changed upstream from 3.3. and 3.4, and the
>> compiler implements a somewhat different flavor of C++ (it's much
>> closer to the standard now).
> However, with symbol versioning and shared libgcc implemented in both
> 3.3 and 3.4, I don't think a transition is actually necessary - I
> believe things will work OK with both versions linked in. For most
> architectures, at least.
> Do you have some reason to think this is wrong?
I don't think this will work in general because a DSO might expose the
layout of objects provided by the standard library in its public
interface. That's part of the reason why I think that symbol
versioning is way overrated in some circles. 8-)
However, if the library just exports a C API, it should be okay.
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, di-ve.com, hotmail.com,
netscape.net, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz, tiscali.it, voila.fr.