From: kevin lyda (kevin at domain suberic.net)
Date: Tue 07 Sep 1999 - 16:59:29 IST
Justin Mason spoke thusly:
>BTW, I second your frustration at this utterly ludicrous crap -- and I
>don't understand who decided to change this as I remember running
>"ancient" binaries on a Linux system a few years ago without trouble.
>Nowadays I can't even FTP a precompiled GNOME app built two months ago,
>and expect it to work.
if by "this" you mean glibc, the reason why distributions are moving to
a) libc5 is an evolutionary dead end. no more development.
b) glibc supports posix threads. libc5 kind of did.
c) glibc is being ported accross platforms and across os's.
d) glibc has less bugs. sadly it does have some.
as for your complaint, it looks like a c++ issue creeping in. the
c++ standard unlike the c standard doesn't do all that much to say
what external symbols should look like. in fact it's specifically
stated that object files from one compiler probably won't be useful
to another compiler on the same system. the same can be said about
different versions of the same compiler.
i don't really have more of an answer, but it's something to consider
if you develop libraries and are trying to chose between c and c++.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:04:32 GMT