| 1 |
On 12/19/13 16:17, Jan Kundrát wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday, 19 December 2013 10:18:55 CEST, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Would it be possible to have a consistent ABI for both C++03 and C++11? |
| 4 |
>> The simpler changes like adding new fields can be backported quite |
| 5 |
>> easily (even if it would mean having dummy fields in C++03), I have no |
| 6 |
>> idea about the more complex changes. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I don't know, but from a bystander's point of view, I surely hope that |
| 9 |
> it will be possible. Otherwise there would be no option but providing |
| 10 |
> a multilib-like setup for C++11, after all. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Some messages on gcc's ML indicate that there are software vendors who |
| 13 |
> are *very* afraid of doing the SONAME change again. Given that C++11 |
| 14 |
> forbids a refcounted std::string while libstdc++ currently use just |
| 15 |
> that for its implementation, I suspect that the upstream developers |
| 16 |
> have a very interesting problem to solve. (And there's much more.) |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> It is pretty clear to me that even the gcc people have not reach a |
| 19 |
> consensus on how the ABI of the standard library will look like in |
| 20 |
> 4.9, so maybe it is premature for us to talk about how to solve this. |
| 21 |
> The ball is on their side. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>> Well, if they considered the C++11 ABI in gcc-4.9 stable, we could |
| 24 |
>> consider changing the default to C++11. Then, we could do our |
| 25 |
>> bump/switch thing as a matter of gcc-4.9 upgrade problem. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> To put things into perspective, *if* the ABI changes and if the new |
| 28 |
> version is compatible between C++98 and C++11, then we're talking |
| 29 |
> something very similar to an upgrade from GCC 3.3. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Cheers, |
| 32 |
> Jan |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
just a question, what would do -fabi-version=6 added to CXXFLAGS even |
| 35 |
w/o C++11? |
Archives