This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.2
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: law at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:01:57 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.2
- Organization: Red Hat / San Francisco
> You could certainly do this too. The idea behind having it done in
> libstdc++ is that we can verify that sizes/layouts of any externally
> visible classes and structures don't change from one rev of libstdc++ to
> another. That in conjunction with testing the signatures of every
> externally visible function gives us a much better chance of keeping
> libstdc++ compatible from one rev to the next.
Right. I think this is the preferred way to go, it just requires much
(much much much) more work than simply swapping libstdc++.so's.
It looks like LSB is also interested in some kind of solution like this,
so perhaps there is some synergy there.