Xavier Bertou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The reputation of being binary incompatible is mostly based on rumors: it
> > affects only dynamicly linked C++ code; and this same incompatibility
> > exists between egcs-1.1.2 and gcc-2.95, and will exist between gcc-2.95
> > and gcc-3.0.
>
> What about gcc-2.96 -> 3.0 ? Did these $^@$%$!$ again change the mangling
> so that there is once again this incompatibility ?
> I do not like the way you say "mostly based on rumors". I don't know what
> percentage of the people who use gcc use it for C++, but nowadays, a lot
> of people do C++, and you nearly always use dynamic libraries. So it is
> not such a side-effect as gcc developers tend to say.
"mostly based on rumors" because it doesn't affect C static, C dynamic and
C++ static.
It affects C++ dynamic, yes. But the same as it would affect 2.95 -> 3.0.
We can live with that. We need to recompile the programs, not a big deal
we already need to do that when upgrading libs and so on.
This story has made big buzz, far more that deserved.
--
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
