jroelofs added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12512#236988, @majnemer wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12512#236987, @EricWF wrote: > > > In http://reviews.llvm.org/D12512#236984, @majnemer wrote: > > > > > Wouldn't this change be problematic if you threw to code which was > > > statically linked with a prior version of libcxxabi? > > > > > > How do you mean? As in you have two different versions of libc++abi linked > > into one executable? If so your already in bad shape. > > > Say you have two binaries, foo.exe and bar.so. Foo.exe statically links > against an older libc++abi and bar.so links against a newer libc++abi. In > this instance, our program has two copies of libc++abi statically linked with > no ill effects and such a scenario was supported before this patch (at least > AFAICT). > > However, we might have problems after this patch if foo.exe is linked against > a newer static library than bar.so I don't think that is/was supported. The abi library holds some global state, which wouldn't be shared between the two instances of it. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12512 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
