SCO port update - what now?
Sat Jun 11 09:33:43 PDT 2005
On Friday 10 June 2005 23:13, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:25:19AM -0700, Kean Johnston wrote:
> > > glxinfo is a C program, not a C++ program. The only problem arises
> > > with broken linkers that do not properly link in libstdc++ to dependent
> > > libraries, but this is not glxinfo or imake's problem.
> > Ah. Fair enough. But if using SimpleCplusplusTarget makes the compile
> > more robust in the presense of such broken linkers, is there a
> > downside to using it? Some unintended side-effect? I know this may be
> > a trade-off between "correct" and "robust" but ... I usually tend to
> > prefer the latter to the former :)
> I think it could have some unwanted side-effects, but can't remember
> which off the top of my head. I assume the linker SCO's using requires
It requires that the program in question be written as a strict subset of C
and C++ (remember that C++ adds keywords and thus there exist valid C
programs that are not valid C++ programs). And it also adds a dependency on
the C++ ABI not breaking, which historically happens roughly 1.1 times per
I don't think any of those necessarily block this change, though it'd be nice
to wrap it in a platform ifdef so we can identify which platforms have this
broken linker behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the xorg