This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFA: gold version number
- From: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, Alan Modra <amodra at gmail dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:34:18 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFA: gold version number
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAJimCsG=7Ro1stj8d8Phzi1oFVS+5TOZ0eTFd+t1RS_HYoiS9Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAKOQZ8y1LhHw=TdOTi_sBzJf-uG7v3RT8KC6TXENYOk=-__gdg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20160328222600 dot GY6588 at vapier dot lan>
>> My general feeling is that the version number should change when there
>> is a significant change in functionality, or when the plugin API
>> changes in some way. But it's also OK to use it for tracking, of
> this is what i'd tend to leans towards as well. for anyone who needs to
> check the version to determine compatibility, i'd generally expect them
> to look at the binutils version anyways ...
OK, I can go with that. I probably should have bumped it for s390 and
MIPS-64 support. (Maybe it's not too late to do it for MIPS-64, as the
last patches for that are still about to land.)
The plugin API has its own version number; it reports the linker
version number only for logging/diagnostic purposes. (Plus, it was
designed so as to rarely need a version number change. New features
are added simply by allocating new LDPT values, keeping all existing
ones exactly the same as before, kind of like Unix system call
Thanks for the advice!