On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:36:38 +0100 Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > Coming to 1), I think DPDK cannot provide ABI compatibility unless all the > > inline functions are converted to normal functions and symbol versioning is > > done for those (not bothering about performance). > > > I disagree. I think even in the case of #1, we should be able to manage > some changes without breaking ABI. > > > In this context, does it make sense to say that we will maintain API > > compatibility rather than saying ABI compatibility? This will also send > > the right message to the end users. > > > I would value ABI compatibility much higher than API compatibility. If > someone is recompiling the application anyway, making a couple of small > changes (large rework is obviously a different issue) to the code should > not be a massive issue, I hope. On the other hand, ABI compatibility is > needed to allow seamless update from one version to another, and it's that > ABI compatiblity that allows distro's to pick up our latest and greatest > versions. Agree with Bruce. What is most important about API is that the function should change signature if behavior changes. I.e catch API changes at compile time (not runtime).
