On Tue, 24 May 2005 17:32:27 -0700, Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 20:11 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> If that's why you were confused by my response, I was not suggesting >> freezing the ABI. I think it's an awful idea. > > Why? To be honest, I keep harping on this mostly because I think it > should happen. All the C++-in-GCC noise is a digression. The problem is that for a library that uses inlines and templates extensively, the implementation is the interface, and so a change of implementation frequently results in an ABI change. So we can't freeze the library ABI until we're willing to commit to the implementation. C++ is much less friendly to separate compilation than C, at least if you use templates. Jason
