(posting this to the list, too) Hi, I'm actually glad you replied.
On 9/26/06, Mike Melanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Having 2 binaries would immediately double the QA effort.
Yes, but also making sure the flash plugin can statically link with libstdc++ increased your development effort quite a bit. And if Ralf is correct about the symbol clashes that you can experience because of the way ELF works, I think you agree that the QA extra effort in this case would also increase. Only the troubleshooting involved would be more difficult , and if you have problems with ELF symbol resolution, all the hacks you've ahd to go through would be useless. I remember reading something about ELF symbol resolution in this document written by Ulrich Drepper: http://people.redhat.com/drepper/dsohowto.pdf. It explains how symbols are resolved - try reading the relevant sections (especially where the way the ELF scope when looking up a symbol is explained) and seeing if it might cause problems to you. I think that's what Ralf was referring to. In the worst case, you are looking at really unpredictable behaviour, and I don't think you want to have to deal with that.
2) So far, there is only one version of gcc that can compile the Flash Player and it is tied to libstdc++ v6.
We've been using gcc-3.3 for quite a while and when moving to 4.0 I found out that the latter is a lot less permissive - usually stuff that compiles with 3.3 will break on 4.0, because of two-phase lookup. Is it something two-phase lookup related? Is it only in one part of the code, and reproducible in a small program? Stefan.
