This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: new concept checks and the 3.0 ABI
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: new concept checks and the 3.0 ABI
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <Gabriel dot Dos-Reis at cmla dot ens-cachan dot fr>
- Date: 06 Apr 2001 18:31:27 +0200
- Cc: Gabriel dot Dos-Reis at cmla dot ens-cachan dot fr (Gabriel Dos Reis), jason_merrill at redhat dot com (Jason Merrill), bkoz at redhat dot com (Benjamin Kosnik), jbuck at synopsys dot COM (Joe Buck), libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CMLA, ENS Cachan -- CNRS UMR 8536 (France)
- References: <200104061607.JAA04717@racerx.synopsys.com>
Joe Buck <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com> writes:
| Jason Merrill <jason_merrill@redhat.com> writes:
| > | What I think Joe is asking about is the libstdc++ ABI; in other words,
| > | should people be able to expect that STL-using code compiled with 3.0 will
| > | link with code compiled with 3.1? In other words, should we commit
| > | ourselves to making only representation-compatible changes? Mark has
| > | expressed the opinion that we should. I'm ambivalent.
|
| Exactly.
|
| Gaby writes:
| > That is a very strong requirement I would like us not committed to.
|
| Without such a requirement, claiming that the C++ ABI is stable is a joke,
| and we should just drop the claim.
What we need to tell users is what exactly is meant by "C++ ABI won't
change". As discussed, it is the fact that what is described in
http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/
will be implemented in GCC/g++ and that interface won't change.
I don't recall any discussion to the effect that libstdc++ ABI was
meant. There are so many things not in their final shape that I can't
even imagine that the whole libstdc++ was implied.
-- Gaby