Re: opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

[Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>]

>There are enough other good arguments that there's no need to make dubious
>claims of "increased conformance to C99" to justify the benefits of 3.4.  
>You will observe that gcc-3.3/c99status.html and gcc-3.4/c99status.html
>are identical apart from the version number: there are no new C99 features
>in 3.4.  Various technical conformance issues are improved, but some
>regressions in c-decl.c were postponed to 3.5 so there isn't monotonic
>improvement either.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

>Even 3.4 doesn't implement the standard C++ ABI fully correctly
><http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-07/msg00138.html>.  (This is apart from
>the "cannot be mangled due to a defect in the C++ ABI" cases, but those
>don't cause binary compatibility problems between releases, just failures
>to compile in the problem cases.)

Of course. That's not my point. There will always be bugs in
implementations, that is also not my point. 

I think it undisputed that 3.4 does a better job of implementing the C++
ABI than 3.2.x or 3.3.x compilers. 

best,
benjamin