Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Sep 2006 20:38 UTC, submitted by fudel
Zeta Magnussoft, the company now responsible for development on Zeta, has announced it is accepting pre-orders for Zeta 1.21. This new release will include multi-user support, will be built with GCC4, among other improvements. Bernd Korz's weblog contains more information. Korz was (is?) the CEO of YellowTAB, the company that started Zeta. Read on for a short editorial on this announcement.
Thread beginning with comment 161182
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: multi user???
by rayiner on Mon 11th Sep 2006 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: multi user???"
rayiner
Member since:
2005-07-06

They don't need a thunking library. They just need to provide a GCC3-compiled version as a "compatibility" library. BeOS uses ELF, so it'll handle that just fine.

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE[4]: multi user???
by JonathanBThompson on Mon 11th Sep 2006 01:26 in reply to "RE[3]: multi user???"
RE[5]: multi user???
by Vanders on Mon 11th Sep 2006 08:49 in reply to "RE[4]: multi user???"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

This is not Slashdot. You are allowed to read a comment before you reply to it.

I believe rayiner was mearly suggesting that they can supply both a GCC 2.95 and GCC 4 version of the library, with different major numbers E.g. libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 Old applications will continue to use the "old" GCC 2.95 version of the library (libfoo.so.1) while any new applications compiled with GCC 4 will use the new GCC 4 version of the library (libfoo.so.2) There is no need to wrap the GCC 4 version of the library, although I agree it would be possible, and possibly even desirable if you wish to reduce redundency.

P.S: The cross-vendor C++ ABI solved the ABI compatability problem many years ago, and has been used by GCC since the release of GCC 3.0.
P.P.S: The fragile base class problem has nothing to do with the version of GCC you're using.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: multi user???
by tristan on Mon 11th Sep 2006 10:58 in reply to "RE[4]: multi user???"
tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

There's no need to be an arsehole.

Reply Parent Score: 1