On 02/01/2011 01:43 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
"Kevin P. Fleming"<kpfleming@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Well... based on Paolo's reply, that's quite concerning. Does this
mean that distros need to provide two compiled versions of libstdc++
and the compiler wrapper will need to select the proper one to link
against based on whether --std=c++0x was used or not? This could have
major ripple effects as well, as various other C++ libraries (Boost,
etc) will have to be compiled in both modes as well.
Yes, I think there is a serious issue here. There are various forces
pushing toward breaking the libstdc++ ABI. I do not know what the
libstdc++ maintainer's plans are.
I guess I was more concerned about having to have two versions of the
library installed for the *same* compiler than about having ABI breakage
at all. Obviously the latter is not ideal either, but it seems like it
would be manageable. The former just sounds like a nightmare waiting in
the wings :-)
--
Kevin P. Fleming
Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
skype: kpfleming | jabber: kfleming@xxxxxxxxxx
Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
