Vladimir Prus wrote:
joel falcou wrote:
Artyom wrote:
Sure, boost ABI changes from release to release but unless you want to provide a "one-for-all" binary release of your library, what is the issue? Even libstdc++ ABI changes every now and then.
Not correct. GCC keeps ABI since gcc-3.4... And this is now about 6 years... Not bad?
Were people upset back then then ?
Yes. What's your point though? It's surely impossible to hope that a given binary library will be usable for decades. But breaking ABI once in 6 years (if not more) is surely better than potentially breaking ABI 4 times per year?
- Volodya
I think that there are more variables involved which makes this optimization more complex. For instance, the dynamics of development is one of the high values of boost in my eyes. If the implementation can be improved, developers do it, which is great. ASIO is a good example. Compile time and runtime improvements in the latest release. Great. Most probably some ABI changes, too. How much improvement would justify breaking ABI? How can it be measured? Not easy, I'd say. Regards, Roland