This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libiberty: hashtab allocation functions with an extra argument
> That is _source_ compatibility, which I agree is a concern.
Source compatiliby is more of a concern, but less of an issue, and
easier to work around. Binary compatibility less of a concern, but
harder to work around. Part of my job as libiberty maintainer is to
try to anticipate future problems as well as remember past ones
(although I wouldn't have known about the shared libiberty on *BSD if
someone hadn't complained).
> They should stop doing that, then.
I could use the same argument (or lack of argument, in this case) to
ask the GDB folks to stop using mmalloc.
> > Except that we *have* had problems when we make noncompatible changes.
>
> Examples?
You mean, besides the flurry of "which libiberty should I use for this
combined build" we used to get before I started caring about
compatibility?
And yes, I KNOW the difference between source and binary
compatibility. And compatibility is NOT a constraint, merely a
consideration. I will NOT let a header change go through blindly, but
neither will I be unreceptive to persuasion. So please stop playing
word games. If you want the patch to go through, address my concerns.