Re: ABI Compatibility (was Re: Installation woes for the average user...)

[Riccardo Mottola]

Hi,


Gregory Casamento wrote:
> The last collective release was only two months ago.
>
> As far as the ABI is concerned that is certainly an issue.   The last time
> we discussed it we came up with two solutions:
>
>
>   
<snip>
> I, personally, think we should implement the first option.  It's the method
> most APIs follow and it is the method that is the most predictable.  It
> would take some effort to do this, but it's minimal since it's really just
> padding the structures with a given amount of space.
>   
To the two solutions mentioned, there is David Chisnall's non-fragile
ivars strategy.

Now let me put down my points:
- I do not want any additional runtime overhead. Performance needs to be
maximum. Always.
- I do not want to relay on some magic compiler and runtime trickery. I
want to be easily compatible with the widest range from compilers, not
only  gcc 2.95, but also for example apple's compilers and who knows
what else

Why the two above? Portability, for example. Performance on embedded
systems.  (Nikolaus?) These are strengths we have and should further
extend, not hamper them.

So I would go for the passing solution and for clear releases. I
essentially think it is "not such a big problem" if every change is
clearly documented and minor and major releases are clear. As the
library stabilizes, we break things less.

The end user should just see a massive update in his package manager.
This happens for gtk too...

Riccardo