On Apr 5, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Rhys Ulerich wrote: >> I see the one very dangerous change in the libhdf5 binary interface between >> 1.8.5 and 1.8.6 versions [2], but the soname was not bumped: the value of >> H5T_ORDER_NONE member has been changed from 3 to 4 in the H5T_order_t >> enumeration type (i.e. old apps execute H5T_ORDER_MIXED instead of NONE). > >> Applications shouldn't use numbers... > > Even when the application is coded using "H5T_ORDER_NONE" the compiler > ultimately "uses numbers" in the binary. The situation described is > problematic when an application compiled against 1.8.5 headers uses > 1.8.6 at runtime. This will happen when the shared library is > upgraded but the application is not recompiled. > yes, you are correct. I see the problem. > Granted, HD5's big scary banner about using the wrong shared library > minor version provides some measure of safety. Still, pesky folks > like me who set HDF5_DISABLE_VERSION_CHECK are at risk.
Probably we should remove this one :-) and be more careful with addressing new features in maintenance releases. Elena > > - Rhys > > _______________________________________________ > Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion. > [email protected] > http://mail.hdfgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/hdf-forum_hdfgroup.org _______________________________________________ Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion. [email protected] http://mail.hdfgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/hdf-forum_hdfgroup.org
