This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- From: Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk dot ukuu dot org dot uk>
- To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, lsb-wg at freestandards dot org
- Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2004 00:24:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Lsb-wg] opposition to LSB 2.0 rc1
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <410C273F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040731171210.A5217@synopsys.com>
On Sul, 2004-08-01 at 01:12, Joe Buck wrote:
> Exactly; for all practical purposes the LSB project is producing an ABI
> standard for Posix on x86-compatible CPUs, and has almost nothing to do
> with the Linux kernel.
And ia64, and x86-64 and powerpc and I've probably forgotten one or two
along the way.
> GCC is a multi-platform compiler, it is not the "Linux compiler".
The LSB can become a multiplatform/multi-kernel standard. Perhaps that
is a discussion the LSB, FSF, *BSD and other parties should have at some
later point ?
> All that said, I will offer my personal, non-official opinion:
> the LSB C++ standard as proposed seems to be falling between two stools:
> 3.2.x-based systems are widely deployed at the moment; 3.4-based
> distributions are now coming out, and it seems that LSB wants to
> standardize on a not-yet-existing 3.3.5, which Gaby is being asked to
> produce based on LSB specifications (a sensitive topic in itself, as the
> FSF may object). Unfortunately, there have been problems with the C++ ABI
> standard: both errors in the standard itself, and bugs in GCC that mean we
> did not correctly implement the standard. I am particularly troubled
> because it means that LSB will be locking in the last version of GCC
> before we fixed the C++ parser, meaning that the old parser will have to
> be maintained indefinitely.