On 12 May 2013 11:39, John Colvin <john.loughran.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, 12 May 2013 at 09:48:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: > >> On 12 May 2013 10:39, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: >> >> On 2013-05-12 05:50, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >>> >>> That helps considerably, though if the compiler is old enough, that >>> won't >>> >>>> work >>>> for Linux due to glibc changes and whatnot. >>>> >>>> >>> My experience is the other way around. Binaries built on newer version of >>> Linux doesn't work on older. But binaries built on older versions usually >>> works on newer versions. >>> >>> -- >>> /Jacob Carlborg >>> >>> >> Depends... statically linked binaries will probably always work on the >> latest version, dynamic link and then you've got yourself a 'this >> libstdc++v5 doesn't exist anymore' problem. >> > > So surely we can just offer a full history of statically linked binaries, > problem solved? > The historical quirk of binary compatibility on Linux is OT to the problem I questioned, so no. -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';