From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 209E63858D1E; Fri,  1 Sep 2023 23:17:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 209E63858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1693610241;
	bh=qJ8rpkjXfMuQaMPOb6q6fPdwymp7xB8F9z6wLokWkPg=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ZGZY0sCVtXMrLYrnt0U0ytkJxYG29u3QxtzoiUtrAqkUalmfTNH4TsrfT3+3CUUdd
	 tSCfCz+fxloA+/7iJ1hjWaSUukB7vyKyWyTk7NRI1czi/IU/NdcS3GfgAx1zi8+Ujr
	 EWtGOAa4ND0W4OYW+3elXiRk7viZaIw91J5jis5k=
From: "rs2740 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/111050] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ABI break in
 _Hash_node_value_base since GCC 11
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 23:17:20 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ABI
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rs2740 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111050-4-8M1m7BnT70@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111050-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111050

--- Comment #2 from TC <rs2740 at gmail dot com> ---
The impacted members we observed are `_Hash_node_value_base::_M_valptr` and
`_Hash_node_value_base::_M_v`. I think the layout of `_Hash_node` didn't
change.

And I'm not seeing why fixing this will require breaking ABI again. For
example, if the affected functions are marked always_inline (or renamed, or
have their mangling otherwise changed), I would expect the resulting code t=
o be
linkable with either the GCC10 version or the current version of the code,
unless I'm missing something?=