In article <20031210014008.GE29087@netbsd.org>,
Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 12:11:36PM +1100, matthew green wrote:
>>    
>>    Also, with gcc 3, haven't we changed libstdc++ and thus its major number? 
>>    Thus haven't we already inflicted this pain on c++ libraries?
>> 
>> would you like to go back to and stay with GCC2 forever?  we don't have
>> any real ability to influence libstdc++ so this is completely irrelevant..
>
>No, I wouldn't. :-)
>
>My point wasn't that I was upset that we've done this, it was that the,
>"never bump shared libraries" dictum didn't hold. For an extreemely good
>reason (I understand that the code doesn't interoperate anymore), but
>"never" didn't hold.

This case does not count because the c++ abi changed. You will get undefined
symbols no matter what if you mix new and old code.

christos