Re: [Patch] libstdc++/14493

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Hi Benjamin,

> To address your question about libsupc++ symbols exported in GLIBCXX 
> instead of CXXABI, the answer is pretty simple: the symbols in 
> question are in namespace std. I can see where you are coming from, 
> but I think the current behavior is defensible.

Indeed, it makes sense.

> Anyway, on to the versioning issue.
>
> The last released libstdc++ is 6.0.8 in gcc-4.1.1. It looks like 
> gcc-4.1.2 will also have this version, which corresponds to 
> GLIBCXX_3.4.8.
>
> The versioning for all unreleased gcc's should all be equivalent, and 
> start with
>
> GLIBCXX_3.4.9
>
> Therefore, it looks like mainline is currently wrong: what's in 
> GLIBCXX_3.4.10 should be in GLIBCXX_3.4.9 (and those changes should go 
> to gcc-4_2-branch) and the new changes that you propose should also go 
> in GLIBCXX_3.4.9 (and also go in gcc-4_2-branch.)

We never discussed in the open this kind of policy. In my opinion, it 
makes the life of the maintainers simpler, but, on the other hand, it's 
risky and/or blocks unrestrained development in newer branches. I don't 
think this is the obvious, general policy of GCC. Indeed, in this 
specific case, this kind of sync implies that slightly experimental 
stuff we have in mainline (e.g., the debug-mode multithreading fixes, 
useful but not a regression) must necessarily go immediately in 4.2.0 
branch and the present fix too. Since you are of this opinion (and, 
supposedly, will share the responsability for the corresponding action 
;) I will take care of the whole sync work, but still, I'm not 
completely happy with this kind of general policy (for the future)

Paolo.

P.S. That "Capiche" sounded totally weird to me, then I found this:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capiche

Actually, the spelling is wrong, would be "Capisce?", or, confidential, 
"Capisci?". Well, in general, it's slightly more polite to say, 
"D'accordo?", because it means "Agreed?", therefore there is no 
ambiguity that the listener is asked whether he *understands* the matter 
vs agrees about the best solution.