Compiling GCC with g++: a report

[Zack Weinberg]

On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 01:45 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >..........................  However, the active development on the
> >libstdc++.so.7 branch means that we haven't even started the clock
> >running on this criterion yet.
>
> Maybe a clarification is in order: actually, the name
> libstdcxx_so_7-branch is somewhat misleading, right now. Indeed, it's
> absolutely true that a lot of active development is going on in that
> branch (consider the nice changes contributed by Chris Jefferson, for
> instance, and more will come), but not necessarily all those changes
> actually break to ABI. 

Thanks for the clarification.  I did not know this.

> I'm not sure what the above may imply for your ongoing discussion, tough...

Well, if I were running the show, the 'clock' would only start running
when it was consensus among the libstdc++ developers that the soname
would not be bumped again - that henceforth libstdc++ was committed to
binary compatibility as good as glibc's.  Or better, if y'all can manage
it.  It doesn't sound like we're there yet, to me.

zw