Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8a0dc1de-bd90-f382-4d21-bc6a38b89a15@posteo.de>
References: <5220691466833525@web3m.yandex.ru> <bc04c8e2-9e8a-f05a-f0e1-f54fdb99f09a@posteo.de>
 <20160626234351.GK8766@freya.jamessan.com> <8a0dc1de-bd90-f382-4d21-bc6a38b89a15@posteo.de>
From: Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 06:54:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CABD8fLXhMyHMdKRBQTyb-LrgrJ5O65LgyeD+-iup97NRO12Auw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: ABI changes analysis
To: Stefan <luke1410@posteo.de>
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c062470d0cb980536412e0b
archived-at: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 11:54:42 -0000

--94eb2c062470d0cb980536412e0b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Stefan <luke1410@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

--94eb2c062470d0cb980536412e0b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Stefan <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:luke1410@posteo.de" target=3D"_blank">luke1410@posteo.de</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">&gt;...<br><blockquote class=3D"gm=
ail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">And now I also remember and realize that these removed symbols were=
<br>
actually private ones never intended to be exported (aka: double _ in<br>
the name). So 1.8/1.9 corrected this and ABI compatibility for these<br>
were intentionally broken.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hunh? No com=
patibility was broken. Those were private symbols, so removing them was per=
fectly acceptable. They are/were *not* part of the (defined) ABI.</div><div=
><br></div><div>Did you see something else? Some other breakage? Or are you=
 just referring to the difference between actual and defined/public ABI?</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>-g</div><div><br></div></div></div=
></div>

--94eb2c062470d0cb980536412e0b--