On terça-feira, 9 de outubro de 2012 12.31.23, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Wednesday September 26 2012, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > But note that there's one stricter requirement: the forwards compatibility > > that applies within a patch series. Adding this new virtual within the > > same > > patch series means a new, public symbol, which could get used in > > applications. > > What about forward-compatibility if I'm changing a pure-virtual to a mere > virtual function? AFAIU, pure virtual functions are actually backed by a > function that prints "pure virtual called" and the aborts. So adding a > (different) implementation should be ok, even in a patch release[1]?
It adds a new symbol: the new function. That means this function could be called directly in non-virtual calls, which in turn means we break the forwards compatibility requirement that applications compiled with a newer version will run in an older version. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
