Niels Möller writes:
Sam Varshavchik <mr...@courier-mta.com> writes:> Compatibility with existing code is trivial. What about binary compatibility? I imagine namespaces are involved in the symbol name mangling in some way? (I'm no C++ guy, so I don't have any strong opinion on whether or not it's a good idea to use namespaces in GMP).
Correct, and binary compatibility is lesser of an issue for C++ than it is for C. It's generally expected that C++ source is going to get recompiled after updating a library. See, for example:
http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/ABI-and-API-compatibility-td2643120.htmlAnother data point: although recently gcc is trying to maintain its own libstdc++'s ABI compatibility across major branch releases, for a while the ABI was compatible only within a gcc branch release. Until some time ago, even if some particular C++ library's ABI remained the same, app code (and that library itself!) would need to be recompiled after updating gcc.
Additionally, gmpxx.so does not use versioning. This would also be a consideration to discuss, here.
pgpSRDAgmiNeZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
