[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New control field proposal which could help on gcc3.2 transition

>> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:

 > Well, that doesn't really work for things like apt and apache, where
 > you break backwards compatability and can't just keep the old version
 > around.  I don't think anyone came up with a way of doing it for the
 > C++ stuff, either.

 It seemed to me that we had reached an agreement on the namespace
 solution (put libraries linked using the new G++ ABI in, say,
 /usr/lib/g++-3.2/ and modify the C++ front-end to pass the appropiate
 flags to the linker).  At least everyone seemed to be saying "yes, that
 sounds ok" and noone raised major objections.  We did put the idea of
 "let's make the dynamic linker second-guess us" aside pretty fast --
 some people kept musing on that for a while but AFAIR it was going

 I was in fact wondering what happened.  I browsed the gcc/toolchain
 list archives and couldn't find anything that seemed relevant at first

Marcelo             | Item 37: Never redefine an inherited non-virtual function
mmagallo@debian.org |         -- Scott Meyers, Effective C++

Reply to: