On 6/26/05, Mike Hearn <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Windows and MacOS have good backwards compatibility, and that's a > capability. So we need to match it. Apple garuntees very limited backwards compatibility for c++ dso STARTING with the introduction of gcc 4.0 http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/CppRuntimeEnv/index.html quoting http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/CppRuntimeEnv/index.html "Apple guarantees ABI stability only for core language features. It does not guarantee stability for library classes, including std::string, std::map<T>, and std::ostream among others." quoting http://developer.apple.com/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptual/CppRuntimeEnv/index.html "If your application must support versions of Mac OS X prior to 10.3.9, you must continue to link statically to libstdc++.a. You should also not use the GCC 4.0 compiler to create C++ programs for systems prior to 10.3.9" How about we not make over-reaching claims about what other operating systems do about backwards compatibility. If ALL application writers in the universe were linking statically to libsdc++ like Apple demanded before the release 10.3.9 would there be much to talk about in this thread? Do not confuse the objective list for Fedora as a set of garuntees for any Fedora Core release. Those objectives are long term goals that the project is working towards. If the upstream project developers stability of the exposed interfaces... 3rd party vendors should absolutely be aware of that before they decide to link dynamically to the library. Holding the downstream distributor responsible for the lack of stability is a bit.. short-sighted. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
