Re: [RFC] C++1x breaking the ABI in one more place :(

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

>>>>> The bad reputation G++ has cultivated does not come from situation
>>>>> remotely close to what the original patch was about.  G++ bad reputation
>>>>> comes extensions that were introduced without much thought about
>>>>> interactions, and that were removed later, etc.  The concrete
>>>>> situation at hand comes from a change in the C++ standard itself.
>>>>> We should not be conflating the two.  Otherwise, we lose credibility.
>>>> You're entitled to your opinion, of course.  But, my opinion is that if

>> Your statement, quoted above, implied that the binary incompatibility
>> being contemplated in this thread was not a serious problem.  It is that
>> opinion to which you are entitled.
> 
> I am curious in the chains of logical inference you went through to get that
> implication from the statement you indicated.

Gaby, this is becoming a ridiculous conversation.  Why don't you just
state clearly whether you think that breaking the ABI by adding a
virtual function to the class in question is acceptable without bumping
the .so version?  Then you won't have to wonder about my thought process
and I won't have to wonder what you mean.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713