[RFC] C++1x breaking the ABI in one more place :(
Mark Mitchell
mark@codesourcery.com
Fri May 21 02:19:00 GMT 2010
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>>>> The bad reputation G++ has cultivated does not come from situation
>>>>> remotely close to what the original patch was about. G++ bad reputation
>>>>> comes extensions that were introduced without much thought about
>>>>> interactions, and that were removed later, etc. The concrete
>>>>> situation at hand comes from a change in the C++ standard itself.
>>>>> We should not be conflating the two. Otherwise, we lose credibility.
>>>> You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But, my opinion is that if
>> Your statement, quoted above, implied that the binary incompatibility
>> being contemplated in this thread was not a serious problem. It is that
>> opinion to which you are entitled.
>
> I am curious in the chains of logical inference you went through to get that
> implication from the statement you indicated.
Gaby, this is becoming a ridiculous conversation. Why don't you just
state clearly whether you think that breaking the ABI by adding a
virtual function to the class in question is acceptable without bumping
the .so version? Then you won't have to wonder about my thought process
and I won't have to wonder what you mean.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list