| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Memory, memoryMemory, memoryPosted Aug 1, 2008 11:15 UTC (Fri) by renox (guest, #23785)Parent article: Will LSB 4 Standardize Linux? (InternetNews)
I don't remember exactly which LSB version that was but I do remember that previous LSB version was criticised: - for having thread tests which didn't work on fast computers due to a race condition in the tests, which is amusing. - by the gcc team for using a C++ ABI which didn't belong to a stable version(*). Both events made me quite dubious about LSB value at the time.. *: Note that this IMHO was also the 'fault' of the gcc team: if the C++ ABI was stable this kind of thing wouldn't have happened.. Apparently the C++ ABI has stabilised since then, so at least this won't be an issue anymore.
(Log in to post comments)
ABI stability Posted Aug 1, 2008 11:42 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] ABI stability might be a priority for an organisation such as LF which is a consortium of proprietary software developers. For free software projects, it might be quite justified that this wasn't a priority (it can be good, but just not a top priority).
ABI stability Posted Aug 1, 2008 17:21 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] ABI stability is important for distributors of binaries, regardless of whether there is source available. It doesn't help much that you would be able to compile a program with a stable compiler version if all of your C++ system libraries are required not to be possible to link against it by the standard your distribution conforms to. Just because users could throw out all of their binary packages that use C++ and get the source packages and build them doesn't mean this isn't a problem for them. And it's particularly bad for users of free software if it's impossible to have on their system for a given library, both a file that will work with the provided software and a file that will work with output from the reliable compiler, because users are likely to want to compile things and have them work, which is less of an issue for users of only proprietary software.
Memory, memory Posted Aug 1, 2008 12:07 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link] The lack of C++ ABIs is a pain in the neck, but it is not something I would like to blame on the GCC people. The C++ standard is both complex and itself instable, and producing a stable ABI for it (let alone one compatible with other compilers) is no mean task. The easiest way to deal with the problem that I know of is to wrap the ABI in something else (i.e. all exports are extern "C", or on Windows COM is popular for the purpose).
|
|
||||||||||||