This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: anderson at freestandards dot org
- To: Phil Edwards <phil at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
- Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 07:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <20040729111335.57e712fd.bkoz@redhat.com><1091138135.1453.33.camel@localhost.localdomain> <410C273F.8000401@bothner.com><20040731171210.A5217@synopsys.com> <20040801064526.GA16343@disaster.jaj.com>
- Reply-to: anderson at freestandards dot org
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2004 at 05:12:10PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > I am particularly troubled
> > because it means that LSB will be locking in the last version of GCC
> > before we fixed the C++ parser, meaning that the old parser will have to
> > be maintained indefinitely.
>
> I would wager that if the LSB chooses this path, it will doom vendors to
> /always/ needing local parser patches applied once they move to a newer
> version, because "the LSB needs it" will probably not be a good enough
> reason to prevent removal of the old parser.
How does the parser affect the ABI? The LSB is not trying to lock in any
kind of bug-compatability at the source level.
Stuart
anderson@freestandards.org Free Standards Group
Lead Developer, Written Specification Linux Standard Base
1024D/37A79149: 0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149