Re: gcc 3.2 transition in unstable
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:22:58PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 02:21:00PM -0500, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > However, absent of a widely-adopted convention on this, there seems to be
> > little that we can do without breaking *something*. Are there any
> > architecture-wide conventions for C++ .so ABI's? (From the little I know,
> > it seems not; which would explain the problems we're having here.)
> This is exactly what gcc is moving towards, and exactly the reason why this
> pain is beneficial in the end.
Well then, in that case, I believe the case is settled. For the sake of
current compatibility, we will just have to do what we have to do: don't
change sonames so that LSB compatibility isn't broken. It may be ugly, but
eventually, once gcc addressees this issue, this whole problem should go
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI.