This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Strange behaviour in C++...


I wrote:

>   > Really?  I know that there is a patent concern (Microsoft has patented
>   > one approach to thunks, one that both Per Bothner and I apparently
>   > independently "invented" but a bit different from the one g++ now uses),
>   > but it is work-aroundable.

> I'm not that wired into this group, but I'd be amazed if they are not
> aware of the micky-soft patents and dealing with them in an appropriate
> manner.  These people have more than a clue.

I'm sure that they have a clue, which was why I was suspecting patent concerns.
They certainly wouldn't want to mandate a standard that requires a
Microsoft patent to be licensed!

>   > I think that any claim of a performance concern should be backed up by
>   > benchmarks.
> Well, if they define the standard, we'll probably want to go along with it.

Yes, of course, at least for the port where the standard applies.

>   > I assume that this would be an ABI for Intel-like hardware?  (I can't
>   > imagine an unqualified ABI for all platforms, I think it is too early).

> ia64.  But most of the concepts behind the ABI apply to other architectures --
> name mangling, vtable layouts, empty virtual baseclass opts, etc etc.

Ah, now I understand ... thunks might really cost on that architecture.
However, it is far from a typical architecture, and what's optimal for
it might be far from best for others.

I will be annoyed, however, if only those who have signed the ia64 NDAs
get to play in setting this standard, and then we are asked to use it for
all the other ports.  Not all the clueful people are in that position.





Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]