On Friday, 3. September 2010 21:22:03 you wrote:
> > Please look again at ftdi_context, a pointer variable was
> > added in the middle of the structure.
> i guess i'm looking at an older snapshot that does not have this (and why
> i started this thread in the first place ... local snaps suck). there's
> no reason why the structure members have to be at the start of a
> structure, and for ABI compatibility, adding new members should always
> be at the end.
Correct. Though we don't force people (yet) to use ftdi_new(),
this will break anyway as f.e. all included example programs
demonstrate to allocate the ftdi_context structure via malloc().
-> Allocating the ftdi_context structure via malloc is much more
common than ftdi_new() and therefore not ABI compatible.
> i do however see a change in the ftdi_eeprom structure in the main ftdi
> tree already (completely ignoring libftdi-1.x) with commit
> 2ff8b87c6e8ec258b705240b03cc2100b50c16bf. so do people not care about
> ABI stability ? is this whole conversation a waste of time if libftdi
> has never been compatible ?
We care about ABI stability, if possible. (this one slipped my eye)
So we need a ftdi_eeprom_new(), too, right?
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx