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: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
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: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:36:29 -0400
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 06/18/2012 04:46 AM, Jonathan Wakely 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.

What problems arise then? As long as the interface of the user code is the same, it doesn't matter which definition of the inline-only code is used.

On 06/18/2012 06:14 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

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

My hope is to nail down the ABI enough for 4.8 that we can drop that claim.

Jason

Follow-Ups:
- 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]