--- Comment #7 from Don <> 2010-08-16 00:03:50 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Answer to comment 3: It's true that WONTFIX from Walter are quite uncommon. 
> But
> here no enough explanations are given to why this change would break backwards
> compatibility. So I think it's positive to have a bit of some more discussion
> here.

Yes. But reopening a WONTFIX bug just because you don't like the answer is
inappropriate. Frankly, I think it was exceedingly rude.
Note that there's nothing still open about this particular bug: Walter said no.
The deeper problem is the absence of a roadmap. Better would be to create a bug
report about the unambiguous state of the ABI. 

Note that this is a particularly dangerous breaking of the ABI: it silently
changes the generated code without warning. This makes it quite different to
things like name mangling changes, which always generate linking errors.
Nonetheless, the presence of bugs like bug 3398, which was only recently fixed,
does mean it's rather naive to think that the ABI is completely stable at

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to