libstdc++ soname and versioning (was: Re: Compiling GCC...)

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

>>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.
>
I agree on both accounts.

In practice, we have got an handful of bugs unfixable within the current
ABI (mostly already fixed in v7) and a major QoI issue (ref-counted
string vs MT) which certainly we don't want in anything "definitive" (x).

Paolo.

(x) What "definitive" really means in such contexts is an interesting
semantic issue: *for sure* will end with C++0x ;)