[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0
From: |
Sylvain Rochet |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0 |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Aug 2016 22:05:56 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 08:17:42PM +0200, address@hidden wrote:
>
> Right. We didn't have binary compatiblity in mind, so after removing some
> flags, some other flags' values have changed. That might still work if you
> fix them up after netif_add() (which calls the netif's init function)...
We can't really have binary, nor source compatibility between lwIP
releases, thinking a bit about it, woah, it sounds like this is close to
impossible to achieve by keeping the code small and readable And that's
was releases are for anyway, except last digit release, the other 2
digits actually share the same meaning about API/ABI break.
> Fixing up the lwIP import symbols in the driver library might be nicer
> than changing the lwIP sources (or else some other lwIP things might
> stop working), but I haven't done this, yet, and it might largely
> depend on the compiler used.
I didn't thought of that but renaming symbols names in the blob to use
the shim layer instead should work, indeed ;)
This is what I would do in this situation, after thinking about it
again.
> Regarding 1.4.0 --> 1.4.1, the only API change was in TCP, I think (minor
> API change, struct tcp_pcb layout change). That shouldn't make a difference
> for you, so 1.4.1 should be an easy replacement.
Humm, I would have thought that a revision release didn't change the API
at all, we should prevent that to happen for 2.0.x by forbidding API
change (ABI?) for revision releases. So all 2.0.x further releases
should be API(ABI?) compatible with 2.0.0, any API(ABI?) change should
go to 2.1.0.
What do you think ?
Sylvain
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0, Sergio R. Caprile, 2016/08/09
- Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0, Sergio R. Caprile, 2016/08/17
- Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0, Simon Goldschmidt, 2016/08/17
- Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0, Sergio R. Caprile, 2016/08/19
- Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0, Simon Goldschmidt, 2016/08/19
- Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0, Simon Goldschmidt, 2016/08/19
- Re: [lwip-users] 1.4.0 -> 1.4.1 or 2.0.0, Sergio R. Caprile, 2016/08/22