From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Koning To: jbuck@synopsys.com Cc: egcs@cygnus.com Subject: Re: need for flag for incompatible-changes Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:44:00 -0000 Message-id: <9801291928.AA26202@kona.> References: <9801291911.AA26196@kona.> <199801291919.LAA16917@atrus.synopsys.com> X-SW-Source: 1998-01/msg01108.html >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Buck writes: Joe> I agree. The only reason for some kind of name-munging trick Joe> would be to support old executables that are available only in Joe> binary form. That's a job that probably isn't worth doing by Joe> the egcs team. If a specific customer has a need for it, it Joe> might be a nice way for some consultant to make a bit of money. >> That sounds reasonable. But for it to be possible, the compiler >> has to supply the raw data, i.e., it has to emit the version data >> into the object files. Joe> But these changes I'm describing have nothing to do with the Joe> compiler, really, and everything to do with the library source. Joe> And we already have a library version number. We must have drifted off-subject... What started the discussion was Per's proposal to add a compiler switch. For cases where that is meaningful, a compiler-generated version number in the object file should also be meaningful, right? paul