----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joshua Cranmer 🐧" <pidgeo...@gmail.com> > > On 6/19/2014 5:55 PM, Botond Ballo wrote: > > Are you saying that gcc - assuming that for some platforms, it is > > considered the platform vendor, and therefore the provider of std::abi - > > would likely ship their non-conforming std::string as std::abi::string > > in order to maintain ABI compatibility between the two? > > No. What I'm saying is that an implicit goal of this paper is to help > gcc changes its non-conforming std::string. And them I'm saying that the > proposal doesn't actually solve that goal: gcc can't change the ABI > because it would break existing programs and code, and adding a new > explicitly-ABI-compatible interface won't work because existing programs > won't use it yet.
I just spoke to Jonathan Wakely (a libstdc++ maintainer who is present at the meeting) and he said that he expects gcc 4.10 will ship with a non- reference counted std::string, in both C++98 and C++11 modes. Therefore I think this point is moot :) > > Do you have in mind a roadmap to an ABI that is portable across > > implementations on a given platform, that does not suffer from these > > issues > > Sadly, no. I'm not sure such a thing can even exist. Why object to this proposal, then? Even if it will, in practice, take a very long time for some projects to adopt extern "abi" and std::abi, this seems better than the status quo. Cheers, Botond _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
