Re: [www-patch] bugs.html rewrite, part 6: section about upgrading the compiler

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>]

> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Volker Reichelt wrote:
> > Well, the sentence would get way too long for my taste (about 4 lines in
> > the HTML source). I'd rather suggest the following:
> > 
> > + <h4>ABI changes</h4>
> > + 
> > + <p>The application binary interface (ABI) defines how the elements of
> > + classes are laid out, how functions are called, how function names are
> > + mangled etc.  It usually changes with each major release (i.e. when the
> > + first or second part of the version number changes).  You <em>must</em>
> > + recompile all C++ libraries, or you risk linker errors or crashing
> > + programs.  However, the ABI is not changed with bug-fix releases (i.e.
> > + when the third part of the version number changes).  The code should be
> > + binary compatible among these versions.</p>
> 
> I like that one; it's much better than what I suggested. ;-)

While this has been historically true, the whole point of having a defined 
ABI is to avoid the need to do this at every turn of the wheel.

I'm not sure we should be expressing our short-commings in this way, even 
if it is a reflection of what's happened in the past.

R.