Re: [Scheme-reports] Are generated toplevel definitions secret?

[Per Bothner <per@x>]

On 05/24/2011 11:44 AM, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
>If another release of
> Chez Scheme comes out, ABI compatibility now means much more than just
> making sure that all the names match. It also means that all the source
> code that may have been inlined, must now also remain unchanged or
> observationally equivalent at the very least. These sorts of problems crop
> up all over the place, and it is difficult to actually achieve ABI
> compatibility in the presence of these problems, so Chez does not even try.
>
> I would be interested in knowing what tradeoffs Guile makes in order to
> guarantee the ability to have ABI compatibility between compiles, given
> that in the general case this cannot be guaranteed even if the source code
> never changes.

I suspect we may be talking about two different things:

(1) ABI compatibility between Scheme implementation versions.
(2) ABI compatibility between between different versions of a library.

I think it a reasonable minimal requirement is: Assume no changes in 
implementation,
library sources, switches/options (Makefiles), or user code.  I would 
expect to be
able to recompile the library without having to recompile the user code. 
  I realize
some compilers may put in time stamps or the equivalent in compiled code,
but I think that should be avoided.
-- 
	--Per Bothner
per@x   http://per.bothner.com/

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports