On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:50 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Richard Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> [Crossposted to both GCC and Clang dev lists]
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> One issue facing library authors wanting to use C++11's constexpr feature
>> is that the same implementation mus
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 07/03/2012 09:18 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>
>> 2) Object layout changes to std::list and std::basic_string. For these
>> types, there is no way to both retain backward compatibility with older
>> C++98 code and conform to the C+
I've posted this to http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Cxx11AbiCompatibility. I
would greatly appreciate any corrections or improvements.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> I've put together the following description of C++98/11 ABI
> (in)compatibility, so peopl
I've put together the following description of C++98/11 ABI
(in)compatibility, so people can tell which libraries need to be
recompiled. This is useful when you've bought a library that didn't
come with source code, and you're trying to figure out if you need to
buy a new version. I think this belo
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:35:17PM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>> C++11 is essentially binary incompatible with C++98.
>>
>> Only partially. The layout for user-defined classes is t
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:49 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 12:14 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>> I see two ways out:
>> 1) Say that accessing a non-volatile atomic through a volatile
>> reference or pointer causes undefined behavior. The standard doesn't
>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> I've been working on GCC's C++11 atomic implementation. In discussions with
> Lawrence, I've recently discovered a fundamental change in what libstdc++-v3
> is likely to provide as far as an implementation.
>
> Previously, header files provi
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 09:49, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>
>> Sure, as it is non-invasive trying it is ok. I just wanted to see if it
>> fixes any existing problem - it does not seem to (apart from
>> maybe e-mail is so hard, a minor proble
