This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Wednesday 25 April 2012 22:51:00 Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > Now, I know that glibc doesn't gratuitously break the ABI do you have any examples of glibc breaking ABI ? i'm pretty sure glibc takes a harder line than the kernel in maintaining compatibility. that's sort of the entire point of symbol versioning and that stuff is not taken lightly. API wise, it's not uncommon for bits to shift, but we're free to do so here, especially as standards change. > reading of your comments is that they provide a rather weaker > guarantee than the statements from Linux kernel developers, where > ABI/API compatibility is an oft-stated and overriding priority err, no ... API compat has never been a goal in the Linux kernel. quite the opposite actually (which Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt is unambiguous in stating). further, ABI compatibility has basically been defined as "if it breaks, and no one complains, then it's OK". there are documented cases of this happening in the last year, and Linus more or less held that up at the kernel summit this last October. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |