LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update
jakub at redhat.com
Tue Feb 9 20:02:34 UTC 2010
On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 07:42:44PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I disagree with that. Previous changes to the build environment - even
> > upstream GCC changes - have broken way more packages (every GCC .x
> > release tends to break a lot of things temporarily).
> And that's something which really irks me about GCC upstream, they don't
> seem to understand what "backwards compatibility" means. That doesn't mean
> it's a good idea to break code like this.
You are probably looking for bug compatibility, and that isn't something
GCC guarantees, definitely not between major versions.
The C/C++ standards (and standards governing the extensions to the
languages) is what matters, if you write standard conforming code, GCC won't
(intentionally) start rejecting it. But if you have code that happens to
compile because of some GCC bug, eventhough it was invalid, or some C/C++
defect report clarifies some corner case, you need to be prepared to fix up
More information about the devel