On 02/18/2012 01:39 PM, Ian MacArthur wrote: > I think Albrecht is correct, adding non-virtual methods is probably ok (I > think of it as "adding" to the ABI but not changing it) but changing the > scope of existing members is generally bad for the ABI. > That said, I have an idea that (at least for some compilers versions) > switching between protected and private was actually ok, though it's not > something I'd want to rely on! > > However, I do wonder how much code really relies on the 1.3.0 ABI right now? > We have no metric for this at all... If all the 1.3.x code in the wild is > linked static then changing the ABI has no impact at all... Would anyone care > to hazard a guess as to how much dynamically linked 1.3 code is really out > there? My guess would be "not much" so if we need to break the ABI, well, > maybe we could?
I believe changing the scope of non-virtual methods is also ok. The mangled name does not change. Also it sounds like these may be inline methods in which case you can do almost anything. _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list fltk-dev@easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
