LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[Björn Persson]

Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > You are probably looking for bug compatibility, and that isn't something
> > GCC guarantees, definitely not between major versions.
> 
> And that's one half of what I'm complaining about.

That sounds to me like you want the GCC team to keep their bugs forever when 
those bugs mask bugs in your code, so that you won't have to fix your bugs. 
Hopefully you didn't mean something quite so insane.

> What about those documented extensions that got deprecated and later
> removed? That's the second half of what I'm complaining about: even things
> which are NOT bugs but documented extensions get deprecated and soon later
> removed.
> 
> IMHO a compiler should accept code whenever there's a sane interpretation
>  of it, no matter whether it conforms to some standard or not (in fact,
>  this used to be a GCC design principle, but sadly no longer is these
>  days), and code which has been compiling for years definitely has a sane
> interpretation.

And what happens the day you need to compile that code with another compiler? 
Do you consider vendor lock-in through embrace-and-extend tactics to be a good 
thing when a free software project does it?

Björn Persson
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100211/2e4f7d12/attachment.bin