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

Re: [SCM] liblas annotated tag, upstream/1.6.0, created. upstream/1.6.0



On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:53:54 +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 06:51:58PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> > 
> [...]
> 
> I'm taking hobu into the loop because he kindly contacted me about 1.6
> last month. Do you have any comments? I guess the liblas_c contains
> the C binding while the liblas.so is C++ (?), but I could be wrong.

I would've said that as well, but "objdump -x" gives mangled C++-like symbols
for both of them:

$ objdump -t liblas_c.so.2.0.0
...
0003a000  w    F .text  00000021              _ZN6liblas4guidC1ERKS0_
0003a022  w    F .text  00000005              _ZN6liblas4guidD2Ev
0003a022  w    F .text  00000005              _ZN6liblas4guidD1Ev
...

$ objdump -t liblas.so.2.0.0
000f0a12  w    F .text  0000003f              _ZN6liblas4guidC1ERKjRKtS4_RA8_Kh
000f0a52  w    F .text  00000005              _ZN6liblas4guidD2Ev
000f0a52  w    F .text  00000005              _ZN6liblas4guidD1Ev
000f0a58  w    F .text  0000002c              _ZN6liblas4guidaSERKS0_
...

Thus, I can't really tell the difference, apart from the huge difference in
size :)

$ ls -lah liblas*.so.2*
-rwxrwxr-x 1 neo neo 1,3M 12 feb 18.33 liblas_c.so.2.0.0
-rwxrwxr-x 1 neo neo  11M 12 feb 18.33 liblas.so.2.0.0
$

> So maybe we should retain a versioned name for the C++ interface
> to avoid possible future ABI breakage... Some clarifications about
> the API roadmap for liblas would be great.

Indeed :)

Kindly,
David

-- 
 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: