On Tuesday, 9 May 2023 23:01:11 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > "The GCC dev_s_", or "one GCC dev"? And who? Jonathan? [citation needed]
Jonathan and Thomas Rogers, but it was the consensus opinion when I brought up some decisions in <atomic> that are ABI and should have been given some more thought before being enabled. The discussion happened on the ML back in 2021 and in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99277 Please specifically see https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99277#c23 "(Un)fortunately, the entire implementation detail in the headers will change, most likely with GCC14 (ideally moving most of the implementation into the .so). As Jonathan points out, this hardly the only experimental feature area within libstdc++ that has undergone such changes." > Pardon my French, but that sounds like ass-covering :) It seems they're serious about it. BTW, I think we don't need to require that C++20-defaulting compiler as our minimum. We just need it to exist, so we can analyse whether it generates ABI- compatible code for everything that is used in our ABI and in pre-C++20 inline code. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
