[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
On 2002-12-20, Eric <ebotcazou@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well, the wording is a bit ambiguous:
>
> Note: ABI compatibility will only be _actively_ maintained for
> Windows, Linux and BeOS on x86 architectures.
>
> That would imply that ABI compatibility won't be "actively" maintained for
> other architectures, which can mean whatever you want. But again, let's
> choose the interpretation-that-fits-our-needs.
Yes, well, *I* thought the meaning is pretty obvious ;-)
>
> So do you agree with the following statements ?
>
> "Full ABI compatibility will be maintained for Win32,Linux,BeOS on x86
> processors throughout the whole 4.0.x series. On other architectures, only
> backward ABI compatibility will be maintained."
No, we can't promise ABI compatibility for architectures (1) that we
don't know about, (2) that don't have [easy] access to, (3) which we
don't understand very well (e.g. I suspect our assumptions of shared
object systems are very Linux-centric and are in need of fixing), (4)
which we don't care much about ;-)
"Full ABI compatibility will be maintained for Win32, Linux, BeOS on x86
processors throughout the whole 4.0.x series. On other architectures,
ABI compatibility will not be guaranteed at all."
>
> "Backward API compatibility will be maintained on all platforms throughout the
> whole 4.0.x series"
Yes.
--
王浩禎