CXXABI_TM_1 status

[Matthieu DARBOIS]

On Tue. 8 Oct. 2019 at 10:45, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote :
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 22:13, Matthieu DARBOIS wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > a new manylinux policy has been defined for python.
> > This includes a series of allowed symbol versions from libstdc++ as
> > can be seen here
> > https://github.com/pypa/auditwheel/pull/192#discussion_r331555495
> >
> > We'd like confirmation that the CXXABI_TM_1 symbol version can be
> > safely included in this policy.
> > From what I understand from reading the sources, I'd say that it's
> > safe to include this symbol version and that it won't disappear
> > overnight (seems part of the a stable ABI since gcc 4.7.0).
>
> Yes, it's part of the ABI baseline and can't be removed from
> libstdc++.so without changing the SONAME of the library.
>
> But why do you want to allow that symbol in manylinux binaries anyway?
> Are people really using the experimental Transactional Memory
> extensions in Python modules?

I'm not sure anyone will be using Transactional Memory extensions in
Python modules but since CXXABI_TM_1 symbol version is part of the ABI
baseline there's also no reason to forbid its usage. Is there ?