This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: (C++) mangling vector types
Jason Merrill wrote:
> I think that a linear progression is sufficient, but I want an
> additional point between 2 and 3 since 2 is the current default and 3
> already has meaning. Thus the 2.1 suggestion.
But, there's no longer a total ordering on ABIs; 3 isn't "bigger than"
2.1 anymore. (Presumably 4 would contain both the change in 3 and the
change in 2.1, so the ordering becomes sensible from that point forward
>> Do we have another libstdc++ ABI change coming? I'd suggest doing this
>> as -fabi-version=4, and making that the default at that point.
> We do; once C++0x is finalized we will need to switch to non-refcounted
> strings and support constant time list.size(). But I believe the plan
> is to manage that transition with namespace versioning so that old and
> new code can continue to coexist as long as they aren't actually trying
> to share affected data structures.
So, do you consider ABIv3 there only as a theoretical conformance
option? In other words, not something we're going to make the default
in any forseeable future? (Those aren't meant to be rhetorical
questions -- I'm just asking.)
(650) 331-3385 x713