Binary incompat Fridays?

[Clarence Dang]

On Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:38 pm, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> argh, again the same question ... ;)
>
And again :)

> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:35:42PM -0800, Charles Samuels wrote:
> > There are compilers that stupidly mangle the protection in the methods.
>
> msvc++ for example. i'm impressed. ;)
>
> > What can our policy be that, seeing as how almost
> >
> > none
>
> all, even ...
>
> > of us [developers] use gcc -- does this count as a BC issue
>
> no, it's not bic according to our definition. we do some
> "#define private public" trickery with some qt headers to access
> internal data, so things would be really broken if any of our target
> compilers mangled the permissions.
>
? I'm rather confused now:

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/library/kdeqt/kde3arch/devel-binarycompatibility.html:
"You cannot ... change the access rights to some functions, for example from 
private to public. With some compilers, this information may be part of the 
signature"

Totally different question but I might as well ask it here: Is changing the 
name of a private variable or a function (and all the references to it, of 
course) binary compatible?  In my experience it is, but I want to 
double-check?

Thanks,
Clarence