On 07/03/2012 08:08 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/02/2012 11:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I also want to mention (I don't think somebody did already in the
thread) that at some point, with Jason too, we discussed the idea of
adding to each binary a mark
Hi,
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 11:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >
> > I also want to mention (I don't think somebody did already in the
> > thread) that at some point, with Jason too, we discussed the idea of
> > adding to each binary a marker about the ABI version which
On 07/02/2012 11:53 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
I also want to mention (I don't think somebody did already in the
thread) that at some point, with Jason too, we discussed the idea of
adding to each binary a marker about the ABI version which then would be
used by the linker to warn or error out. Th
Hi,
On 07/02/2012 07:24 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 2 July 2012 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11
On 2 July 2012 18:24, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I'd like to see inline namespaces used so that in C++11 mode std::list
>> refers to (for example) std::__2011::list, which has the additional
>> member. That wouldn't link to C++03's std::list
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 2 July 2012 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
compatible (mo
On 2 July 2012 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>>>
>>> While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
>>> compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member
>>> to std::_List_
On 07/02/2012 10:26 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member
to std::_List_base::_List_impl makes libraries using
std::list in headers in
On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 15:14 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
> compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member
> to std::_List_base::_List_impl makes libraries using
> std::list in headers incompatible
This is pretty nasty
On 14 June 2012 14:14, Matthias Klose wrote:
> So what could be done for a distribution?
>
> - For this particular issue, ask upstreams to work around this
> particular incompatibility. This might work better, if the
> upstream sits "closer" to the distribution, but doesn't seem
> to be a g
On 06/14/2012 06:14 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member
to std::_List_base::_List_impl makes libraries using
std::list in headers incompatible, when built in c++98 and
c++11 mode.
So it do
While PR53646 claims that c++98 and c++11 should be ABI
compatible (modulo bugs), the addition of the _M_size member
to std::_List_base::_List_impl makes libraries using
std::list in headers incompatible, when built in c++98 and
c++11 mode. Currently seen in libsigc++ (Signal Framework
for C++) an
12 matches
Mail list logo
