On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 05:14:42PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > I'm not sure what the above may imply for your ongoing discussion, tough... > > Well, if I were running the show, the 'clock' would only start running > when it was consensus among the libstdc++ developers that the soname > would not be bumped again - that henceforth libstdc++ was committed to > binary compatibility as good as glibc's. Or better, if y'all can manage > it. It doesn't sound like we're there yet, to me.
Why can't libstdc++ use symbol versioning? glibc has maintained the soname and binary comptiblity despite changing fundamental types like FILE
