Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Eric Sandall <eric AT sandall.us>]

Quoting Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>:
> It would be hard to have TRIGGERS for all the C++ spells, but
> certainly do-able. On the other hand, not every gcc re-cast includes a
> binary incompatibility. Im pretty sure cleanse --fix is part of a system
> update too so it would/should catch these issues, although the sys-update
> would take a fairly significant amount of time.
>
> I dont want to sound negative but binary incompatibility is not a
> pretty thing...I think that too little attention is paid to having
> backwards compatibility in the C++ ABI, maybe thats a hard problem or
> something, or the last attempt was too restrictive or C++ is just too
> big of a language to get it right on the first try, I dont pay attention
> much to C++, Im just guessing.
>
> As a consequence though, to the end users (smgl for example), everyone who
> builds stuff from source gets the shaft. You'd get the same problems if
> you used a binary distro and then updated to 3.4 then started building
> a few things here and there, they wouldnt work and all your binary
> packages would either need to be updated (and their probably arent
> updates), or you'd have to give up using gcc 3.4 until their were. Or
> on other source distros youd have similar (if not the same) issues,
> its not really a unique to smgl problem, and unfortunatly we cant just
> make the incompatibility disappear without having to rebuild a bunch of
> stuff that was broken by it.
>
> Also, I thought it was generally common practice to sorcery rebuild
> after a gcc update to take advantage of better code optimization in
> the new compiler (and to just get everything uniformly built from the
> same compiler). Maybe its less of an issue than it was in the 2.95 ->
> 3.0 phase of gcc, but I thought thats just what people did when they
> updated their compiler...
>
> -Andrew

Shall I add to our FAQ[0] the notion that you should do a `sorcery rebuild`
after updating gcc/g++ (not just a recompile, but an update) or at least a
`cleanse --fix`?

We could then have that as our "Official" remedy for gcc/g++ updates and C/C++
API/ABI incompatibilities.

-sandalle

--
Eric Sandall                     |  Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61  |  http://www.sourcemage.org/
http://eric.sandall.us/          |  SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
http://counter.li.org/  #196285  |  http://www.shock.wsu.edu/

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.