Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 06/18/2012 07:16 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 06/16/2012 12:46 PM, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > >
> > > A soname change for a basic system library is a _major_ PITA and should be
> > > avoided even at large costs.  In that light: do you have a plan of action
> > > of how to never change the soname again, at least on targets where that is
> > > reasonably possible with symversions?
> >
> > I'd like to echo this.  In my discussions shops doing large C++ development,
> > they've made it clear that the disruption caused by a soname bump would be
> > immense and should be avoided at all costs.
>
> Jeff, please note that the path that Michael took from what was said ealier
> (in particular the quote he provided in his message) and the conclusion
> of "enthusiasm for soname bump" is still a mystery.
You'll note that I didn't include that portion of Michael's message.

My comments were meant to echo just the parts of Michael's message that 
I included inline.  Namely that a soname bump is a huge problem and 
great lengths should be taken to avoid it.

jeff