Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >>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? >> >> >I know exactly how much work it is for Debian. I wouldn't mind slowing >down. I wouldn't mind using symbol versioning to solve the problem, if >I honestly thought that were feasible (which I don't, for a C++ >implementation library). But the fact of the matter is, the distros >know how to deal with this once in a while. I think that it's more >important that we continue to improve the library, for now. > >In a couple years I'll probably think differently. > I agree on both accounts.
In practice, we have got an handful of bugs unfixable within the current ABI (mostly already fixed in v7) and a major QoI issue (ref-counted string vs MT) which certainly we don't want in anything "definitive" (x). Paolo. (x) What "definitive" really means in such contexts is an interesting semantic issue: *for sure* will end with C++0x ;)
