Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
>..(actually there is still a
>pending core compiler ABI change pending)
>
Indeed, I think you are right: I clearly remember Mark saying: let's
synchronize any possible library ABI change with a core compiler
change. In my understanding, we
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
| On that topic, my point was more to say "give some warranty/promise".
There is no point in making a promise when one does not have enough
data to keep it. That does not mean, we don't want; just that it is
hard work. And we have been carefully
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 08:29 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The project I'm proposing is not to move to C++. Just to move to the
> intersection of C and C++, which is what we had agreed on in previous
> discussions. Someone needs to implement those decisions, that is what
> I'm trying to do (of c
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 14:48 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Just a quick comment: this is *already* happening, no doubts. We have
> v6 since 3.4.0...
I know (well almost) Apologies if my mail was suggesting the
opposite. As you might have noticed, I tried to avoid to make too strong
statements a
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
| All that being said, I do not know why this C++ transition should be
| blocked by libstdc++ ABI stability. Given the history the GCC project
| and the amount of work (and the expected benefits) that would arise just
| from converting to a simple s
Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
>The real problem I think is not really casting an ABI in stone, but
>merely to have "some stability" over time. Maybe the only thing that is
>missing is a "commitment" of the C++ library ABI stable over a few (two,
>three ?) major gcc releases as there is one for the c
On Wed, 2005-05-25 at 10:37 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> >>Why? To be honest, I keep harping on this mostly because I think it
> >>should happen. All the C++-in-GCC noise is a digression.
> [.]
> In practice, we have got an handful of bugs unfixable within the
> current
> ABI (mostly alrea
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>Why? To be honest, I keep harping on this mostly because I think it
>>should happen. All the C++-in-GCC noise is a digression.
>>
>>You know how much work it is for the distributors every time we bump the
>>libstdc++ soname. Why wouldn't we want to stop inflicting t
