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. 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
> nowhere.
>
> I was in fact wondering what happened. I browsed the gcc/toolchain
> list archives and couldn't find anything that seemed relevant at first
> glance.
I did not see any of the actual toolchain developers buy into this,
actually. I'd say we'd reached no agreement of the kind. This would
mess up inter-distribution compatibility pretty bad.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Reply to: