This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Strange behaviour in C++...
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Subject: Re: Strange behaviour in C++...
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 16:59:07 -0600
- cc: mrs at wrs dot com, oliva at dcc dot unicamp dot br, cj at interlog dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <199908252245.PAA26371@atrus.synopsys.com>you write:
> Really? I know that there is a patent concern (Microsoft has patented
> one approach to thunks, one that both Per Bothner and I apparently
> independently "invented" but a bit different from the one g++ now uses),
> but it is work-aroundable.
I'm not that wired into this group, but I'd be amazed if they are not aware of
the micky-soft patents and dealing with them in an appropriate manner. These
people have more than a clue.
> I think that any claim of a performance concern should be backed up by
> benchmarks.
Well, if they define the standard, we'll probably want to go along with it.
The ability to mix-n-match code between different compilers is a good thing ;-)
> I assume that this would be an ABI for Intel-like hardware? (I can't
> imagine an unqualified ABI for all platforms, I think it is too early).
ia64. But most of the concepts behind the ABI apply to other architectures --
name mangling, vtable layouts, empty virtual baseclass opts, etc etc.
jeff