From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: law@redhat.com
Subject: Re: GCC 3.2
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 19:05:00 -0000
Message-id: <20020812190157.2508a7d6.bkoz@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/msg00716.html

> You could certainly do this too.  The idea behind having it done in
> libstdc++ is that we can verify that sizes/layouts of any externally
> visible classes and structures don't change from one rev of libstdc++ to
> another.  That in conjunction with testing the signatures of every
> externally visible function gives us a much better chance of keeping
> libstdc++ compatible from one rev to the next.

Right. I think this is the preferred way to go, it just requires much
(much much much) more work than simply swapping libstdc++.so's.

It looks like LSB is also interested in some kind of solution like this,
so perhaps there is some synergy there.

-benjamin