Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0?

[Xavier Bertou]

> The reputation of being binary incompatible is mostly based on rumors: it
> affects only dynamicly linked C++ code; and this same incompatibility
> exists between egcs-1.1.2 and gcc-2.95, and will exist between gcc-2.95
> and gcc-3.0.

What about gcc-2.96 -> 3.0 ? Did these $^@$%$!$ again change the mangling
so that there is once again this incompatibility ?
I do not like the way you say "mostly based on rumors". I don't know what
percentage of the people who use gcc use it for C++, but nowadays, a lot
of people do C++, and you nearly always use dynamic libraries. So it is
not such a side-effect as gcc developers tend to say.
-- 
Xavier