This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: [Patch] Nathan's improvements to basic_string


On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 11:15:27PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Loren James Rittle wrote:
> 
> >My only concern (in terms of committing it ASAP to mainline) might be
> >that this is at least a reverse incompatibility.  It may be (i.e. I
> >think it is but haven't personally tested it) forward compatible.
> >
> I believe that for 3.4 we are completely free to break the ABI, don't 
> you?... see, f.i., what we have already committed for iostreams (not to 
> mention what's around the corner ;)

Yes, I think 3.4 is already binary-incompatible with 3.3.  The day 
is fast approaching, though, when we will have to stop breaking the 
ABI so routinely.  Probably there will be a lot more resistance to 
an incompatible 3.5.  I would expect reduced uptake of 3.4 if the 
performance improvement wasn't so great.  (Yay, you guys.)

What's changing is that people are finally beginning to move off 
2.95/2.96, partly because of x86-64, where they have had at least the 
illusion of stability, for years at a stretch.  They're landing on 3.2
or 3.3, and they expect to stay there as long.  Pray that more hold 
out a little longer and land on 3.4 than on an earlier release.

Numerics people I talk to, by the way, say that each C compiler
release since 2.7 has generated slower code than the last, and 
they're starting to get very testy about it.

Nathan Myers
ncm-nospam@cantrip.org


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