| |||||||||||||
Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now?Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now?Posted Jul 8, 2010 11:13 UTC (Thu) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793)In reply to: Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now? by michaeljt Parent article: Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now?
Well, one thing I agree. Shipping binaries it's the easy part.
(Log in to post comments)
Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now? Posted Jul 8, 2010 11:23 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Well, one thing I agree. Shipping binaries it's the easy part.
When I said "shipping", I included building and solving binary compatiblilty issues in that. It really isn't too hard - build on the oldest system you want to support, decide what dependencies you can rely on the system to provide and ship the rest static, load a couple of things at runtime if in doubt. There are still a couple of gotchas (the autopackage web page has good information on the subject, although C++ ABIs are no longer a problem, and glibc is getting better at not pulling in new features unless you actually use them), but it is still quite feasible. And once you have solved the problems, they stay solved on the whole.
Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now? Posted Jul 8, 2010 11:31 UTC (Thu) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
Right. That's exactly what I was agreeing to.
And the current C++ ABI stability plays a big part in that, contrary to the hell it was earlier (and worst on Windows because there were more than one mainstream compiler).
Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now? Posted Jul 8, 2010 11:35 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> And the current C++ ABI stability plays a big part in that, contrary to the hell it was earlier (and worst on Windows because there were more than one mainstream compiler).
I thought that Windows people used COM for ABI because it is well defined.
Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now? Posted Jul 8, 2010 15:25 UTC (Thu) by nlucas (subscriber, #33793) [Link]
COM has nothing to do with C++ objects, although there are Microsoft C++ extensions to the language to make it easy to work with it inside C++.
You can use COM in a pure C program.
Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now? Posted Jul 8, 2010 15:18 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> although C++ ABIs are no longer a problem
Hm. Unfortunately, I think they will be again at some point soon. It sounds like when G++'s C++0x support is finalized, they're going to have to change the ABI of std::string and maybe a few other core classes. (okay, so, that's not a C++ ABI break, only an STL ABI change).
Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now? Posted Jul 12, 2010 13:25 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
Do you have any reliable sources that state this?
Zimmerman: Weve packaged all of the free software what now? Posted Jul 15, 2010 14:51 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
There have been discussions to this effect on the GCC mailing list. It's not unsubstantiated scuttlebutt. (Perhaps a way will yet be found to avoid a std::string ABI change, but none is yet evident.)
|
|||||||||||||