Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> writes: > A ticket ( https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/6542 ) has been raised about > libtool SONAME having not changed between GDAL 2.0.X and GDAL 2.1.0 due to > incrementing both LIBGDAL_CURRENT and LIBGDAL_AGE . > This was raised also in https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/ticket/4543 > > Our, more or less implicit, policy up to now was to take just into account > the > C ABI, and not the C++ one. Any opinion if we should change it to take into > account the C++ ABI as well ?
I can see the point, but the other half of the situation is that packages do (or should) make a significant effort not to have ABI changes. With C ABIs, that seems to work pretty well. I have the impression that C++ ABIs are much more unstable, and they also seem to change in practice when changing compilers. So I am left wondering how much stability benefit there really is for C++ by adopting such a change. Would you expect a C++ ABI change every release? Or is that an occasional thing?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
