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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 05:14:34 -0500
Subject: Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7
References: <684e2daa82dfe58f3c0ca7898a646503.squirrel@fuhm.net> <CAH6eHdQEciws3XiV_mbLDaL4OA3c1B91sYH1=3OOEsK8+NhhYQ@mail.gmail.com> <2f242c57969394ada4e4245513f247de.squirrel@fuhm.net> <4FDEDE37.6060704@redhat.com> <CAH6eHdRrzhHDUx_9S6Awm4m-DmxLcwLsEDMjFFkLL78M7b4q3g@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:

> The problems arise when user code that uses the "inline-only" code is
> linked to other user-code that has a different definition of that
> inline-only code.

Indeed.

A related question is whether for GCC-4.8 we should still continue
to claim that C++11 is only experimental?  That is at which point are
we going to stop claiming that?  Is it just a cover for not having to
decide anything ABI-wise?  If so, I think we can just say that and
drop the "experimental" disclaimer.

(we don't fully implement C++03, but that does not prompt to claim
experimental support.)

-- Gaby

References:
- Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7
  - From: James Y Knight
- Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7
  - From: Stephan Bergmann
- Re: C++98/C++11 ABI compatibility for gcc-4.7
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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