On Friday, 3. September 2010 21:22:03 you wrote: > > Please look again at ftdi_context, a pointer variable was > > added in the middle of the structure. > > i guess i'm looking at an older snapshot that does not have this (and why > i started this thread in the first place ... local snaps suck). there's > no reason why the structure members have to be at the start of a > structure, and for ABI compatibility, adding new members should always > be at the end.
Correct. Though we don't force people (yet) to use ftdi_new(), this will break anyway as f.e. all included example programs demonstrate to allocate the ftdi_context structure via malloc(). -> Allocating the ftdi_context structure via malloc is much more common than ftdi_new() and therefore not ABI compatible. > i do however see a change in the ftdi_eeprom structure in the main ftdi > tree already (completely ignoring libftdi-1.x) with commit > 2ff8b87c6e8ec258b705240b03cc2100b50c16bf. so do people not care about > ABI stability ? is this whole conversation a waste of time if libftdi > has never been compatible ? We care about ABI stability, if possible. (this one slipped my eye) So we need a ftdi_eeprom_new(), too, right? Cheers, Thomas -- libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details. To unsubscribe send a mail to [email protected]
