On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:55:02PM +0400, Alexander V. Lukyanov wrote: > I have put a prerelease at ftp://ftp.yars.free.net/lftp/devel.
Asked someone in debian/potato to try this out; the static initializer test failed. Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/2.95.2/specs gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux) (I don't know when this was fixed in gcc.) What kind of a cap is this putting on C++ compatibility? That is, how new does a person's compiler have to be to compile lftp? (Is this commonly supported in older, non-GCC compilers?) I'm not suggesting this be changed, necessarily; just that we *know* what restrictions are being put on compiling, make them explicit, and take advantage of them. For example, if we require a feature only typically well-supported in compilers newer than 1.5 years, then STL, exceptions, etc. are probably not technically out of bounds (though there may be other reasons not to use exceptions, at least.) If this is an isolated bug (that tends to work in other compilers), we should still figure out where the line is--how new a compiler (and likewise, libc++) is expected to be to run new lftp releases. I think that if people aren't willing to upgrade their compiler, it's OK for them to be stuck with older versions of other software. Occasionally releasing a stable version, saying "from now on, these C++ features are required and if you don't have them, stick with this version" and moving on helps a lot, or you end up with the problems Vim has--endless backwards compatibility (which actually goes to efforts to compile on C compilers so old they don't handle local initializations properly.) What's your take on this? -- Glenn Maynard
