Re: GCC 3.2 transition

["Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org>]

>> Panu A Kalliokoski <pkalliok@ling.helsinki.fi> writes:

 > In practice, this kind of situation (ABI's being dictated by factors
 > that are orthogonal to each other) hasn't occurred too much in
 > practice yet, and the "nice" workaround that will not make
 > unnecessary conflicts is to have different SONAME namespaces. One way
 > to achieve this could be gcc 3.2 automatically linking against a
 > different dynamic linker.  (Basically, if the dynamic linker was
 > written in C++ (which it isn't), this would be the only option
 > anyway.) Does gcc's upstream have any views on this?

 I was toying with that idea in my head.  There's no need for a special
 C++ compiler, is there?  Just the normal linker with a different set of
 default paths.  This is like using an -rpath.  The problem with -rpath
 is that it has precedence over LD_LIBRARY_PATH.  So, the simplest
 solution is for g++-3.2 to indicate a different dynamic linker when
 linking programs.

-- 
Marcelo             | Item 4: Prefer C++-style comments
mmagallo@debian.org |         -- Scott Meyers, Effective C++