We have no such desire. I think we're fine being the test subjects for ABIv2 however.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 4:51 PM Louis Dionne via Phabricator < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: > ldionne added a comment. > > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D52660#1249709, @kristina wrote: > > > LGTM. Can we formalize ABIv2 as stable and make it distinct from > unstable (soon to be ABIv3) or are there are any rough corners still left > before ABIv2 and unstable can split in a feature freeze? I'm not an expert > on libc++ related matters but @ldionne suggested that ABIv2 still wasn't > ready on IRC (unless I misunderstood him). > > > I don't think we've ever had plans to freeze the ABI v2 into something > stable -- this is the first time I hear about it. I'm not saying it does > not make sense, by the way, just that I haven't heard any plans about this. > Does Fuchsia have a desire to stabilize the ABI of libc++? > > > Repository: > rC Clang > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D52660 > > > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
