Subject: Re: NetBSD 2.0 release date
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 12/10/2003 04:44:18
In article <20031210014008.GE29087@netbsd.org>,
Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:11:36PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>> Also, with gcc 3, haven't we changed libstdc++ and thus its major number?
>> Thus haven't we already inflicted this pain on c++ libraries?
>> would you like to go back to and stay with GCC2 forever? we don't have
>> any real ability to influence libstdc++ so this is completely irrelevant..
>No, I wouldn't. :-)
>My point wasn't that I was upset that we've done this, it was that the,
>"never bump shared libraries" dictum didn't hold. For an extreemely good
>reason (I understand that the code doesn't interoperate anymore), but
>"never" didn't hold.
This case does not count because the c++ abi changed. You will get undefined
symbols no matter what if you mix new and old code.