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

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 <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.  

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 <aj@humbug.org.au> <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.''

Reply to: