* on egcs-1.0
@ 1997-12-07 3:18 Orn E. Hansen
1997-12-07 8:32 ` Jeffrey A Law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Orn E. Hansen @ 1997-12-07 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
I've read some talks about the release, egcs-1.0. Since I'm reading
that if I apply patches from 1201 to 1.0, it won't be compatible with
the next snapshot. I wonder about binary compatibility of programs
compiled with one version with the other. Will the difference between
the versions affect a program, that is dynamically compiled to one, on
the other (I expect both to have a libstdc++.so.2.8.0 name).
Since I have a very slow link, I'm not very keen on downloading
patches or upgrades, unless they are necessary or provide a needed
functionality... or solve a critical bug. And 1201 snapshot is
working beautifully here now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: on egcs-1.0
1997-12-07 3:18 on egcs-1.0 Orn E. Hansen
@ 1997-12-07 8:32 ` Jeffrey A Law
1997-12-07 15:13 ` Martin von Loewis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 1997-12-07 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Orn E. Hansen; +Cc: egcs
In message < 199712071114.MAA02853@oehansen.pp.se >you write:
>
> I've read some talks about the release, egcs-1.0. Since I'm reading
> that if I apply patches from 1201 to 1.0, it won't be compatible with
> the next snapshot. I wonder about binary compatibility of programs
> compiled with one version with the other. Will the difference between
> the versions affect a program, that is dynamically compiled to one, on
> the other (I expect both to have a libstdc++.so.2.8.0 name).
I don't think we're introducing any binary incompatabilities at this
time.
At some point we will, and I hope the C++ folks will warn everyone
about it when it happens.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: on egcs-1.0
1997-12-07 8:32 ` Jeffrey A Law
@ 1997-12-07 15:13 ` Martin von Loewis
1997-12-07 16:41 ` Jeffrey A Law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Martin von Loewis @ 1997-12-07 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: law; +Cc: oe.hansen, egcs
> I don't think we're introducing any binary incompatabilities at this
> time.
>
> At some point we will, and I hope the C++ folks will warn everyone
> about it when it happens.
The original wording using 'incompatible' was somewhat confusing.
What it (probably?) meant is: The next snapshot will include a patch
relative to 1201, not to 1.0. So if you apply the 1.0 patch now, you
will not be able to patch to the next snapshot, unless you reconstruct
the 1201 sources first.
Regards,
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: on egcs-1.0
1997-12-07 15:13 ` Martin von Loewis
@ 1997-12-07 16:41 ` Jeffrey A Law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 1997-12-07 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin von Loewis; +Cc: oe.hansen, egcs
In message < 199712072306.AAA18675@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de >you write:
> The original wording using 'incompatible' was somewhat confusing.
Yup.
> What it (probably?) meant is: The next snapshot will include a patch
> relative to 1201, not to 1.0. So if you apply the 1.0 patch now, you
> will not be able to patch to the next snapshot, unless you reconstruct
> the 1201 sources first.
That is the case. I've mentioned it several times to this list.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-12-07 16:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1997-12-07 3:18 on egcs-1.0 Orn E. Hansen
1997-12-07 8:32 ` Jeffrey A Law
1997-12-07 15:13 ` Martin von Loewis
1997-12-07 16:41 ` Jeffrey A Law
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).