Strange behaviour in C++...

[Joe Buck]

Jeff writes:

> Most importantly that there is a group working on a C++ ABI which (from my
> understanding) will not include thunks (due to the performance concerns).

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 think that any claim of a performance concern should be backed up by
benchmarks.

> I don't think we want to burn a lot of time on thunks if there's a reasonable
> chance the C++ ABI will take a different direction.

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).