This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Compiling GCC with g++: a report
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:32:27PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 20:11 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:14:42PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > > Well, if I were running the show, the 'clock' would only start running
> > > when it was consensus among the libstdc++ developers that the soname
> > > would not be bumped again - that henceforth libstdc++ was committed to
> > > binary compatibility as good as glibc's. Or better, if y'all can manage
> > > it. It doesn't sound like we're there yet, to me.
> >
> > If that's why you were confused by my response, I was not suggesting
> > freezing the ABI. I think it's an awful idea.
>
> Why? To be honest, I keep harping on this mostly because I think it
> should happen. All the C++-in-GCC noise is a digression.
>
> You know how much work it is for the distributors every time we bump the
> libstdc++ soname. Why wouldn't we want to stop inflicting that pain on
> them?
I know exactly how much work it is for Debian. I wouldn't mind slowing
down. I wouldn't mind using symbol versioning to solve the problem, if
I honestly thought that were feasible (which I don't, for a C++
implementation library). But the fact of the matter is, the distros
know how to deal with this once in a while. I think that it's more
important that we continue to improve the library, for now.
In a couple years I'll probably think differently.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC