Linux vs. libio

[Michael Vance]

On Wed, Dec 22, 1999 at 12:03:21AM +0100, Marc Espie wrote:

> I've followed the glibc issues from the sidelines.

As have I. I should note, for fairness sake, that I am a customer of
Mark's.

> Somehow, I don't quite believe that, no matter how well-meaning the glibc
> folks have been, such disasters won't happen again...  

Neither do I. Sure, I'd love for the C++ ABI to settle, but I'm not
counting on it.

> linux folks (like having to upgrade the glibc version number...), will the
> Steering Committee take steps to ensure the Right Thing is done ?  

I'm concerned about this, too.

I develop binary only software for Linux. It is a pain
(__register_frame_info, glibc 2.0 vs 2.1 ABI breakage, etc.). But, it is
not nearly as much a pain as having to track down very weird bugs in
the compiler (the atexit() crap for static object destructors in
shared libraries). Or having to find/pay someone who is
qualified/interested/etc. to do the work on the compiler. First and
foremost, I want a compiler that works. If it's possible to do that
within the framework of backwards compatability, so much the
better--as long as it isn't a burden on further development.

What does bother me is when we agree that things won't break, and
then they do. I expected things to break from libc5 to libc6. No
pointing whining about it. I did not expect things to break from glibc
2.0 to 2.1. Perhaps that was my misunderstanding.

> * companies that distribute binary-only applications.

As above, it doesn't help us if the compiler is broken.

m.

-- 
Programmer                         "I wrote a song about dental floss,
Loki Entertainment Software         but did anyone's teeth get cleaner?"
http://lokigames.com/~briareos/              - Frank Zappa, re: the PMRC