As far as I’m able to tell[1], Glibc has never removed a versioned symbol as long as symbol versioning has existed, so the intended backwards compatibility is “forever”. No binary built against a(n unpatched) Glibc should fail to load on a later Glibc due to an absent Glibc symbol version. (Of course, if you play non-version-aware dynamic linker and dlsym() not dlvsym() things in libc, you lose; if you bundle an “updated” part of libc with the application[2], you lose; etc., so this may be true but still not entirely foolproof. And given how many things there are in libc, if you’re going to lose it’s probably going to be there.)
[1] E.g. https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=history;f=stdlib/V...
(Hacks such as https://github.com/wheybags/glibc_version_header -- which apparently does work very well, but still feels like an annoying hoop that should be unnecessary to jump through. I wish glibc's shipped headers actually could support this out of the box so you could set a preprocessor define like `-DGLIBC_TARGET_ABI=2.12` and it would just work.)
... Duh?
(I’m not an expert in VSCode DRM, to put it mildly, so I might be misinterpreting this discussion, but that’s what it looks like to me. Also, isn’t it referencing GLIBCXX i.e. libstdc++, which not even a part of Glibc?)
You're right, so not an example of a glibc failure, but rather another standard library. Thanks!
Thanks to symbol versioning I never know if a binary will work unless I can dismiss it early by versioning causing it to not link at all.
And given that glibc backward compatibility for all practical purposes is shorter than 10 years, having to support centos can get you a lot of those issues