On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 02:28 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>
>> Are you planning for C++11 ABI stability in 4.9?
>
>
> Yes. But if mangling bugs are discovered after 4.9, I propose to just fix
> them (as I believe EDG and Clang do) rather than hold them
On 03/05/2013 02:28 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
Are you planning for C++11 ABI stability in 4.9?
Yes. But if mangling bugs are discovered after 4.9, I propose to just
fix them (as I believe EDG and Clang do) rather than hold them in
reserve as we have been doing.
Jason
On 3/4/13, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Our policy on mangling bugs has been that we don't change
> the mangling unless users explicitly specify -fabi-version.
> Over time, this means that quite a few bugs have been found but
> continue to accumulate. Most of these are C++11-specific, which
> means tha
On 03/04/2013 03:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Seems reasonable. Presumably -Wabi will warn folks if they're doing
something that results in a different mangling?
Currently -Wabi warns about things that will are different in a later
version; it would probably make sense to allow people to write some
On 03/04/2013 11:31 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
Our policy on mangling bugs has been that we don't change the mangling
unless users explicitly specify -fabi-version. Over time, this means
that quite a few bugs have been found but continue to accumulate. Most
of these are C++11-specific, which mean
