| 1 |
Jan Kundrát <jkt@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Friday, 20 December 2013 10:00:43 CEST, Martin Vaeth wrote: |
| 3 |
>> The example with string reference-counters which you gave is IMHO |
| 4 |
>> typical; |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> You have not considered the implications of the updated requirements |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
It seems you are changing the topic: We were talking about |
| 9 |
downward-compatibility of source code. There is no doubt that |
| 10 |
the C++11 requirements need a new ABI: |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> without breaking the ABI [...] |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> but I do not expect that the end result will allow linking a translation |
| 15 |
> unit built for C++98 by GCC <= 4.8 with one built for C++11 by the new |
| 16 |
> compiler. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That's why it might be a good idea to translate with C++11 by default. |
| 19 |
No old units <-> no problem ;) |
| 20 |
Again: It is clear that this route is possible only if the number |
| 21 |
of packages breaking with such a default is small, and fixes are simple. |
| 22 |
Which needs to be examined by "experiment" and not by theoretical |
| 23 |
considerations. |
Archives