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 20:00:04 +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: <200104061755.KAA10035@racerx.synopsys.com>
Joe Buck <jbuck@racerx.synopsys.com> writes:
| > | Note that http://www.codesourcery.com/cxx-abi/ talks about the multivendor
| > | ABI -- we never signed up, nor should we sign up, to having our library
| > | interoperable with other vendors' libraries.
| >
| > If you don't want GCC/g++ comply to the multivendor ABI, that is not an
| > issue I'll dispute with you. It *is* the fact that ABI is implemented
| > in the compiler.
|
| No, that's not what I'm saying. The ABI as described is fine. I'm just
| saying that I see no reason to force our library to be exactly the same
| as everyone else's.
OK.
But honestly, we can't freeze the library -- that is too strong a
constraint.
-- Gaby