On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:57:49 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > You may wish to read the proceedings from this year's GCC summit, where
> > another solution was presented by some gentlemen from Intel. For various
> > reasons, symbol ve
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:57:49 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> You may wish to read the proceedings from this year's GCC summit, where
> another solution was presented by some gentlemen from Intel. For various
> reasons, symbol versioning is not a useful solution to this problem.
I hadn't seen th
> You may wish to read the proceedings from this year's GCC summit, where
> another solution was presented by some gentlemen from Intel. For
> various reasons, symbol versioning is not a useful solution to this
> problem.
>
> No one objected to their solution in principle, AFAICT, although there
>
On Sat, Jul 30, 2005 at 09:33:45PM +0100, Mike Hearn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One problem with the parallel C++ ABI versioning (which makes it not so
> useful) is that symbols in the libstdc++ namespaces are put into the
> generated binary if you use the STL. Those generated symbols are *not*
> symbol ver
Hi,
One problem with the parallel C++ ABI versioning (which makes it not so
useful) is that symbols in the libstdc++ namespaces are put into the
generated binary if you use the STL. Those generated symbols are *not*
symbol versioned so conflicts can still occur.
This is registered in bugzilla and
