C++: STL 3.2

[Mike Stump]

> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999 23:14:34 -0700
> From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>

> We've already got binary incompatibilities, I think.

Yes, usually there are.  Only if you methodically test it often and in
great detail, can one get binary compatibility.  In the absence of
such work, we generally get binary incompatibility.  Now, how good it
complete binary compatibility except for these random 3 things?
Usually, not good enough.  Net result, we generally never offer binary
compatibility, and just wanting it is not enough.

> It's probably safest just to say that 1.2 is not binary compatible
> with 1.1.x, and, if possible, *enforce* that.

Enforce?  This is called being binary incompatibly gratuitously.  I am
not sure I am for this.  What if a poor sole is using it like a C
compiler, and expects binary compatibility (reasonably so), and we
brake it, net result, he isn't happy.  We never have done this, and I
propose we never do.


Now, what should we do, ask folks that want binary compatibility for
there test results that prove existing compatibility, or failing that,
add in the new SGI stuff, and say that 1.2 isn't generally speaking
compatible.  If we go the later route, it is a shame that we haven't
been building and testing with all the new ABI breaking things, as we
then might as well turn them all on.

I'd be curious to hear what Brendan and Jason think, and if there are
any folks that have been testing binary compatibility and what they
have done.  I have seen little to no announcement of such work here,
as I recall.