On Monday 20 March 2006 18:13, you wrote: > Hi Martin, > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:17:37PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > > > > However, these changes break compatibility at the binary level, and > > > obviously that's not a desirable thing for a supposedly stable > > > version. > > > > Why do you think it will break compatibility at the binary level? The > > reference to friends in http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/abi.html > > suggests no such thing. Maybe it makes a difference with another > > compiler but binary compatibility shouldn't be an issue in this case > > with at least GCC. Do you have a reference saying otherwise? > > I am quite sure that adding some missing declarations does not break > binary level compatibility. Anyway, if Jeroen is more comfortable with > using -ffriend-injection for FOX 1.4 I can update the package to use it.
Actually, I think you may be right; if there's no hit on binary compatibility,
then changing the declarations is probably better as otherwise we're going
to have to let all the other applications pass this flag.
However, it can't be changed the same way as 1.6 since that DEFINITELY is
an API change [many of the friend functions have become members].
Thanks for the info; I'll change the FOX 1.4 headers....
Regards,
- Jeroen
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Copyright (C) 21:10 03/20/2006 Jeroen van der Zijp. All Rights Reserved. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
pgpqRtMiItqyU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
