> > Couldn't those subtle errors be replaced by some clear and understandable > > error? Like some explicit binary compatibility check? > > Such a test does not exist, comprehensively. We can put a few common things > in > an ABI marker, like the size of QObject, the actual type qreal maps to, the > name of the C++ standard library we linked against, etc. But that won't catch > everything and it's the minor things that come back to bite you. > > Neither the ABI test by the Linux Foundation, nor abigail, nor our own > tst_bic > are exhaustive. And they're way too slow for a regular run.
I thought of something like a simple, manually maintained ABI version. Sure, on the one hand this wouldn't prevent uninentional BC breaks. On the other hand, BC changes could be done intentionally and managed in a safe way (without strange crashes). -- Best Regards, Bernhard Lindner _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
