This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm dot net>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, jyasskin at googlers dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:16:29 -0500
- Subject: Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7
- References: <email@example.com> <CAH6eHdQEciws3XiV_mbLDaL4OA3c1B91sYH1=3OOEsK8+NhhYQ@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAAiZkiAB7d5pEaKwqjR=rVt=wDa8n=zQdegOZn8HWi+M1jcemail@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4FDF2539.email@example.com>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Law <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
>> A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
>> avoided even at large costs. ?In that light: do you have a plan of action
>> of how to never change the soname again, at least on targets where that is
>> reasonably possible with symversions?
> I'd like to echo this. ?In my discussions shops doing large C++ development,
> they've made it clear that the disruption caused by a soname bump would be
> immense and should be avoided at all costs.
Jeff, please note that the path that Michael took from what was said ealier
(in particular the quote he provided in his message) and the conclusion
of "enthusiasm for soname bump" is still a mystery.