Re: a couple notes on the libc 2.1 packages
On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 15:50:30 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 14, 1999 at 03:23:33PM -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> - There's something weird going on with the libstdc++ packages.
>> libstdc++ linked with libc 2.1 is supposed to be backward compatible
>> with C++ binaries linked with libc 2.0. (If this doesn't work,
>> upstream would really like to know about it.) The libstdc++ packages
>> have been set up such that a C++ program linked with the old
>> libstdc++2.9 keeps using it, and this does not work. So any C++
>> program segfaults until relinked.
>
>As I understand it, the new libstdc++ packages should have the same
>soname as the previous ones - still saying libc6.0 if they had
>previously. But the libstdc++ api patch uses __GLIBC_MAJOR__ and
>__GLIBC_MINOR__ - not the soname! Is this the wrong behavior? I
>suspect so.
Um. I thought the libstdc++ api patch put the *compiler* version into
the libstdc++ soname. The C library major version should be taken
care of by shlib dependencies, and the library minor version shouldn't
matter except that you have to rebuild libstdc++ to be able to compile
new binaries with it.
zw
Reply to: