On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:00:13PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
...but wait. If this is the case, isn't there a potential problem
when a C++ program uses libGLU? Couldn't we end up with conflicting
symbols from two different versions of libstdc++, one linked into
libGLU and the other
Marcello Magellon wrote:
Keyword: implemented.
All of GLU's interfaces are C, not C++, so transitioning libGLU is
ill-advised at best.
Hmm. I guess if libGLU *uses* C++ interfaces, but does not *export* any C++
interfaces, then it's effectively a program, not a library, for the purposes
of
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:09:18AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Also, for those who aren't aware, the new xorg packages now in
unstable are also implicated in the C++ transition, because libGLU is
implemented in C++.
Keyword: implemented.
All of GLU's interfaces are C, not C++, so
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 12:00:12PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:09:18AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Also, for those who aren't aware, the new xorg packages now in
unstable are also implicated in the C++ transition, because libGLU is
implemented in C++.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:24:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Oh, ugh. I think the XSF was essentially following Ubuntu's lead
here; no one realized, or thought to check, that the C++ bits weren't
exported as part of the ABI.
Ah... that was my guess...
David, do you want me to put
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 05:09:28PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 03:24:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
Oh, ugh. I think the XSF was essentially following Ubuntu's lead
here; no one realized, or thought to check, that the C++ bits weren't
exported as part
6 matches
Mail list logo
