[lsb-discuss] LSB, GCC versions C++11 and libstdc++

Wichmann, Mats D mats.d.wichmann at intel.com
Mon Dec 17 15:05:50 UTC 2012

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Dallman, John <john.dallman at siemens.com>wrote:

>  > > An upgrade to GCC 4.7 is on the list, but not expect to happen very
> soon?****
> > It's planned for LSB 5.0, but I don't see who's going to work on it. The
> group
> > tends to defer C++-related work because it's not as simple as working on
> > C-based libraries (Stew might pop in with a complaint those aren't
> simple
> > either).  Hopefully it will still make the cut for 5.0.****
> Will this have full support for the GCC 4.7 version of libstdc++.so.6, and
> thus not restrict ****
> the use of C++11? ****
> ** **
> There's an obvious problem here: if it is that way, there's no backwards
> compatibility onto
> older GCC C++ run-times. But if it isn't, you presumably can't use C++11,
> or at least, not all ****
> of it. ****
> ** **
> All this is prompted by various product groups here getting more
> interested in LSB, because ****
> they're having to support more Linux distributions, but also being
> interested in C++11.

I wish I could give you a more data-based response but I really just don't
know the issues.
LSB tries hard to bridge the compatibility gap, but every now and then some
kind of shift
does have to happen - LSB can't "hold back progress" either.  If there are
of a serious nature, some kind of dual library support can be worked - but
I see that the
gcc project themselves have not seen the need to switch away from
libtdc++.so.6, so
I'm assuming the issues are manageable (of course using new features always
is an
issue when you want compatibility back to systems that predate the new
that's nothing unique to the c++ question).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20121217/751d6d29/attachment.html>

More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list