This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++: STL 3.2
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: C++: STL 3.2
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:14:34 -0700
- CC: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at, egcs at egcs dot cygnus dot com
- References: <1253.924996368@upchuck.cygnus.com>
- Reply-to: mark at codesourcery dot com
>>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey A Law <law@upchuck.cygnus.com> writes:
Jeffrey> In message
Jeffrey> <Pine.GSO.4.10.9904231640040.22202-100000@markab.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
>> you write: STL 3.2 has been release yesterday:
>> http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/whats_new.html
>>
>> This missed the "Feature freeze date" by one day, but --
>> considering the relatively long life of our release branches
>> and the usually high quality of SGI STL releases -- may I
>> suggest that we merge that in for 1.2?
Jeffrey> I'd like either Jason or Mark to make the final decision
Jeffrey> on this. I won't object because it missed the cut-off by
Jeffrey> one date given the cycle times for our major releases.
My casual opinion is that we probably ought to take the new release,
but leave out the <limits> and <valarray> bits, since <limits> appears
to be SGI-specific, and <valarray> is not what the v3 people are
using, and introducing the SGI version now will give us more
incompatibilities in the future.
Jeffrey> However, I would like to see a summary of what binary
Jeffrey> compatibility problems we are likely to have if we
Jeffrey> update.
We've already got binary incompatibilities, I think. We updated to
3.11 on 1998-09-02, and activated some new features in the STL on
1998-09-03. That means that if we didn't break link compatibility we
should probably hope we did: even if things link they may or may not
work correctly with code using 1.1.x era STL code. (It looks to me
like we branched 1.1.x on 1998-06-27, right?)
It *may be* that the 3.11 update in our current sources didn't break
anything, but I don't think we can know that without a careful audit
of what changed. It's probably safest just to say that 1.2 is not
binary compatible with 1.1.x, and, if possible, *enforce* that.
But, Jason is probably better able to make this kind of policy
decision than I.
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com