This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1

Matt Taggart wrote:

I suspect all of the major runtimes are working on it, but it will be many months until it's widely deployed in releases that developers target.
3.4 doesn't yet meet the LSB criteria, it's blocked on deployment by the runtimes. I believe this is only a matter of time, but waiting for 3.4 would delay the addition of c++ by at least 6 months.

I'm confused. I don't understand how *current* deployment can block anything for LSB 2.0. I don't see how current releases can support LSB 2.0 (except accidentallly), so the whole point is to define the a requirement for the *next* releases. So the fact that nobody has deployed 3.4 yet is irrelevant - hopefully they soon will.

The counter-argument is that binary compatibility goals and testing
make switching to gcc 3.4 something that may not happen quickly.  But
I'm still puzzled why vendors can be expected to switch to LSB 2.0
(which is not out yet) so much quicker than they can switch to Gcc 3.4
(which has been out for 3 months).
	--Per Bothner

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]