LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update
bjorn at xn--rombobjrn-67a.se
Thu Feb 11 02:27:56 UTC 2010
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
> 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
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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100211/2e4f7d12/attachment.bin
More information about the devel