Trevor> hrm, I know basically nothing about the upcoming changes, but I would
Trevor> have expected linking c++03 code against c++11 code would be fine
Trevor> especially when the interface doesn't involve any stl.
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Cxx11AbiCompatibility
This warns against mixing with C++98, which seems to be how GCC is
built.
While I agree that in this specific case it is probably safe, since gcc
in general isn't a heavy user of libstdc++, I think it's reasonable to
simply follow gcc. This is safer in case gcc changes; and the benefit
from C++11 in libcc1 is modest, especially when you consider the extra
template magic we'd need in order to actually use variadic templates for
the RPC stuff.
Trevor> Well, we build everything or at least everything I've seen with
Trevor> -fno-exceptions, so if something does throw we'll just crash right?
Trevor> istm we certainly write code calling the throwing new with that
Trevor> expectation.
Gcc's coding conventions say that code ought to be exception-safe in
case exceptions are used in the future. Search for "Exceptions" here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/CppConventions
I think retaining the std::nothrow is safer in view of this, and doesn't
cause any problems.
Tom
