On Thu, 7 Jul 2016, Tinker wrote: > My question to you is still the same as in the previous email, and that is: > > Is there really not is any mechanism to enforce loading of only ONE stdc++ > version and that one being the NEWEST, in OpenBSD today; so loading of two > etc. happens regularly?
You've been given an answer and yet you ask again. If you don't believe what a developer says, then why are you asking? It sounds from your other email like you're testing it yourself: good choice, though I would recommend doing that earlier in the process. > The guys at #gcc (redi) call that "madness", if it's the case. Anyhow > looking forward to your clarification just to understand. "madness"! How horrible! We've managed to....have different priorities than another group. And we have....non-violent disagreements about what goals improve the software ecosystem. Huh. Sounds a lot more boring and less dramatic when looked at that way. It's almost like people can make choices for themselves. Oh, and playing a game of 'telephone' between here and "#gcc (redi)" is pointless: too many ways for context to be lost or go awry. And nope, we're not interesting in being the character here: https://xkcd.com/386/ > And it boils down to the same thing as pointed out in the previous > emails, which is that *not more than one* lib[e]stdc++ must be loaded at > the same time, and that that should be the newest one. Maybe if this is a problem for a development setup, then the setup is too complicated? Solving a problem by making greater complexity possible instead of pushing back on the complexity is not always a good thing. ... > So, as clarified previously the just-load-one-and-that's-the-newest > policy about lib[e]stdc++ is all needed for inter-g++-version > intercompatibility for "C++03" code. Of problems that *I'm* interested in solving, that is *waaaaay* down on the list. Oops, I ran out of space and it fell off. Maybe when I get some other stuff done I'll come back around and put it back on the bottom of the list. By then, C++O3 may be totally obsolete and we can ignore it and move on. Philip Guenther
