[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.  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: