Le 30/01/2019 à 16:09, Manuel Klimek a écrit : > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 3:51 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org > <mailto:anto...@python.org>> wrote: > > > Le 30/01/2019 à 15:35, Manuel Klimek a écrit : > > > > Am I reading you wrong, or are you actually proposing to > package another > > libstdc++ version as a Python wheel? > > > > > > That would be the idea. > > > > > > If so, are you going to claim that the given wheel is > > manylinux-compatible? > > > > > > That is my question :) Why wouldn't it be? (I'd link it against > > manylinux libc and other C-only system libs) > > The problem is when you are loading two modules that link against > different libstdc++ versions in the same process. Incidentally, it's > the problem which prompted this discussion. > > > Sure, I'm aware :) I think as long as the requirement that all libraries > that want to exchange runtime-ABI-compatible versions are compiled with > the same toolchain, we can provide a way to mangle the symbols > differently.
Ah, I see... Indeed, mangling the symbols may work for this. That said, if you're looking to create a de facto standard, why can't it be proposed as a manylinux iteration? Regards Antoine.
