This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- To: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>
- Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, taggart at carmen dot fx dot hp dot com, anderson at freestandards dot org, jim at meyering dot net, keithp at keithp dot com
- Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 21:37:34 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <200408011911.i71JBsLt017603@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca>
I would hope that the C++ stuff can be avoided for the ISO part. In the
LSB world providing expectations are set right it may be just about
managable as a temporary hack. It doesn't belong in an ISO standard, the
rest I think does.
The LSB 2.0 C++ stuff needs to be an annex, it needs to make it clear
its a short term solution that will be improved upon. The fact that
there may never even be a gcc release that meets the proposed ABI due to
FSF opposition makes that even clearer.
I don't want a situation where users jump on the LSB 2.0 C++ spec,
discover it doesn't work and that the free software world has moved on
regarding it as failed. It'll do tremendous damage to the LSB reputation
unless we document it as such - as an addenda that explains you demanded
a C++ solution now, this is one, its not the final story
but it will get you what you need for the moment within its limits.
Alan