Re: New control field proposal which could help on gcc3.2 transition
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:42:08AM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> >> Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
I hadn't gotten that impression. At first glance, it looks a lot like it
would break any third party binaries that use C++ libs, which, unless g++
upstream was what was modified, would still be looking in the default
ld.so paths. That'd pretty much defeat the pupose.
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''