"Perrin Harkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Stas Bekman said: >> In fact Perrin gave a perfect counter-example, while looking for an >> example. The fact is C libraries *do not* embed version numbers in their >> API. > > Sure they do, when they change the API significantly: SQLite2, Gtk2, > libxml2. Separate API, manpages, headers, etc.
Not quite. There's a difference between appending a version number to library name, and embedding a version number in the function names. The former is standard practice nowadays because we distribute our C libraries to other developers, and telling a C compiler which API you want to you want to compile against can be a royal PITA without versioning both the soname and INC path. The latter is what symbol versioning solves, which works fine when you're distributing to end-users only. But nobody sane mangles C function names by actually embedding version numbers in them; the linker's toolchain is expected to work that out (with a few hints here and there). -- Joe Schaefer -- Report problems: http://perl.apache.org/bugs/ Mail list info: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/modperl.html List etiquette: http://perl.apache.org/maillist/email-etiquette.html
