[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: libtool versioning

From: Jason Curl
Subject: Re: libtool versioning
Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 19:45:57 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4

On 04/05/2010 20:41, Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2010-05-04 20:00 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
Errrm, is that really so? I tend to agree with Jef here...

I take it that your response is to my "... it will work" sentence, not
the paragraph below that.

Ah, indeed.

The algorithm *could* be interpreted such that e.g. the interface change
"int foo(void)" ->  "int foo(int)" is an interface addition of int foo(int)
and an interface remove of int foo(void), thus triggering both #5 and #6.
But in that case "changed" need not be mentioned in #4 either. So, because
"changed" is mentioned in #4, it also needs to be explicitly mentioned
in #6.

Ah, ok.  Yes, you're right.  Feel free to commit a patch to
s/removed/&  or changed/  in 6.
Sorry I came in late for the discussion. Is it correct to interpret "removed" as an interface has been removed, or an interface has been changed so as to cause a binary incompatibility, so that bumping the major version is the result to indicate it is not 100% binary compatible with the previous version, and therefore may break a program that is already compiled against this library?

I've pushed the attached patch...


2010-05-05  Peter Rosin  <address@hidden>

    Clarify versioning algorithm documentation.
    * doc/libtool.texi (Updating version info): Be explicit
    about setting age to zero on interface change.
    Reported by Jef Driesen <address@hidden>


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]