Le 30 mars 2012 à 15:48, Ian Lance Taylor a écrit : > Romain Geissler <romain.geiss...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Using structs with some sets of function pointers may break compatibility >> between minor release. > > Yes, but fortunately we have a good understanding of how not to do that. > > We could also go the even safer route used for linker plugins, in which > the plugin is invoked with a list of functions, where each function is > tagged with a code. See include/plugin-api.h for the interface and > lto-plugin for an implementation. The approach there is very clean and > permits forward and backward binary compatibility. I don't know if we > want to go that far for compiler plugins. > > >> Anyway, you're suggestion to group functions in common names, that's just >> C++ motto. May the eventual plugin API in C++ (independently from internals >> being C++ or not) ? > > I think we have a clear understanding of how to maintain compatibility > across releases in C. I do not think we have that understanding in C++. > > Ian
Ok thank you, i didn't know about that. I'll take a look to the lto-plugin.
