On Feb 13, 2011, at 10:22 AM, David Paleino wrote: > On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 00:53:54 +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 06:51:58PM +0100, David Paleino wrote: >>> >> [...] >> >> I'm taking hobu into the loop because he kindly contacted me about 1.6 >> last month. Do you have any comments? I guess the liblas_c contains >> the C binding while the liblas.so is C++ (?), but I could be wrong. > > I would've said that as well, but "objdump -x" gives mangled C++-like symbols > for both of them: > > $ objdump -t liblas_c.so.2.0.0 > ... > 0003a000 w F .text 00000021 _ZN6liblas4guidC1ERKS0_ > 0003a022 w F .text 00000005 _ZN6liblas4guidD2Ev > 0003a022 w F .text 00000005 _ZN6liblas4guidD1Ev > ... > > $ objdump -t liblas.so.2.0.0 > 000f0a12 w F .text 0000003f > _ZN6liblas4guidC1ERKjRKtS4_RA8_Kh > 000f0a52 w F .text 00000005 _ZN6liblas4guidD2Ev > 000f0a52 w F .text 00000005 _ZN6liblas4guidD1Ev > 000f0a58 w F .text 0000002c _ZN6liblas4guidaSERKS0_ > ... > > Thus, I can't really tell the difference, apart from the huge difference in > size :) > > $ ls -lah liblas*.so.2* > -rwxrwxr-x 1 neo neo 1,3M 12 feb 18.33 liblas_c.so.2.0.0 > -rwxrwxr-x 1 neo neo 11M 12 feb 18.33 liblas.so.2.0.0 > $ >
The *intent* was to have the _c only have the C API in it and dynamically link to the liblas.so which contains the entire C++ API. Stuff seems a bit mixed if the same symbols are showing up in both. I'll admit to being a CMake neophyte when it comes to controlling these kinds of things... >> So maybe we should retain a versioned name for the C++ interface >> to avoid possible future ABI breakage... Some clarifications about >> the API roadmap for liblas would be great. > > Indeed :) > Agreed. The C++ API between 1.2.x and 1.6 has seen a number of additions and changes, with a few deletions. They are in no way compatible. The C API has only had a few additions between 1.2 -> 1.6, and it should be binary compatible for the most part. As far as a roadmap goes, my intention is that there will not be too many changes to either the C or C++ APIs going forward unless something clearly needs to be reversed. Versioning the APIs does makes sense, even for clarity's sake though. Howard PS: Adding liblas-devel to keep them aware of API issues as well._______________________________________________ Liblas-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/liblas-devel
