Re: ABI changes analysis

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Stefan <luke1410_at_posteo.de> wrote:
>...

> And now I also remember and realize that these removed symbols were
> actually private ones never intended to be exported (aka: double _ in
> the name). So 1.8/1.9 corrected this and ABI compatibility for these
> were intentionally broken.
>

Hunh? No compatibility was broken. Those were private symbols, so removing
them was perfectly acceptable. They are/were *not* part of the (defined)
ABI.

Did you see something else? Some other breakage? Or are you just referring
to the difference between actual and defined/public ABI?

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2016-06-27 13:54:43 CEST