Re: need for flag for incompatible-changes

[Paul Koning <pkoning at xedia dot com>]

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Buck <jbuck@Synopsys.COM> writes:

 Joe> I agree.  The only reason for some kind of name-munging trick
 Joe> would be to support old executables that are available only in
 Joe> binary form.  That's a job that probably isn't worth doing by
 Joe> the egcs team.  If a specific customer has a need for it, it
 Joe> might be a nice way for some consultant to make a bit of money.
 >>  That sounds reasonable.  But for it to be possible, the compiler
 >> has to supply the raw data, i.e., it has to emit the version data
 >> into the object files.

 Joe> But these changes I'm describing have nothing to do with the
 Joe> compiler, really, and everything to do with the library source.
 Joe> And we already have a library version number.

We must have drifted off-subject... What started the discussion was
Per's proposal to add a compiler switch.  For cases where that is
meaningful, a compiler-generated version number in the object file
should also be meaningful, right?

	paul