On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 20:11 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:14:42PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > Well, if I were running the show, the 'clock' would only start running > > when it was consensus among the libstdc++ developers that the soname > > would not be bumped again - that henceforth libstdc++ was committed to > > binary compatibility as good as glibc's. Or better, if y'all can manage > > it. It doesn't sound like we're there yet, to me. > > If that's why you were confused by my response, I was not suggesting > freezing the ABI. I think it's an awful idea.
Why? To be honest, I keep harping on this mostly because I think it should happen. All the C++-in-GCC noise is a digression. You know how much work it is for the distributors every time we bump the libstdc++ soname. Why wouldn't we want to stop inflicting that pain on them? zw
