> -----Original Message----- > From: redhat-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:redhat-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Gordon Messmer > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 6:31 PM > To: redhat-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: C++ lib compatibility between Red Hat 9 and 7.3 > > Otto Haliburton wrote: > > > > You are completely of base as to what the point is. > > Then be more specific when you describe "the problem". > > > It is not the > > developers that have the problem as you are talking about. They don't > have > > the resources to thoroughly checkout the compilers. > > That's why developers who distribute source are usually fairly clear > about which compilers it's known to work with. > > > Actually, it is not the > > compiler that is the problem. Remember that when you compile a program, > it > > is the responsibility of the linker to resolve the symbols and the > addresses > > no matter what the objects look like. So if a library contains a > routine > > with the same name as a routine in another library then it should > resolve to > > the routine it has. > > Actually, if you have two libraries with the conflicting symbols, > compilation should bomb and tell you fix the situation. > > That isn't, however, the only problem with mixing objects from different > compiler versions. They changed the way that symbol names are mangled, > so the compiler will produce an application binary that won't link > against the library binary produced by another compiler. The function > name and call might be the same, but the mangled names are different, so > they symbols can not be resolved. > > >>>This needs to be fixed to where anyone can select a > >>>new compiler and not worry that it will break everything else and you > >>need > >>>resources to test it against all previous versions. If you don't then > >>no one will accept open community software period. > >> > >>OK. Which compiler will they use? > > > > > > The one that works out of the box and if necessary will pay for the one > that > > works. > > In which case, they'll probably use the same compiler version on both > releases of the distro... and it'll work. Imagine that. > > > I think by your comments you completely missed the point. > > If everyone you're talking to is missing the point, you're probably not > making it clearly. > > I know the situation sucks. I'm not trying to say that it doesn't. I'm > mearly explaining part of why the situation arose (C++ is too > complicated to have had a stable ABI from the very beginning), and what > you can do about it (don't mix objects from different compilers). > > You are finally catching up. Maybe if you stop and think you'll figure things out. The developers are having to work out the kinks after the fact cause they don't have the resources. -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
