public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "bspencer at blackberry dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/99058] Consider adding a note about std::optional ABI break to the C++17 status table Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 19:44:50 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-99058-4-COWaviVnpB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-99058-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99058 --- Comment #3 from Brad Spencer <bspencer at blackberry dot com> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #1) > C++17 support isn't stable until GCC 9 so there is no guarantee of > compatibility between 7 and 8 or 8 and 9. That applies to the entire library > (and language features) not just std::optional. Ok. What's the right way for me to learn what version of GCC has stable support for a C++ version? For example, where would I look to know that C++17 support isn't stable until GCC 9? I can't seem to find that information on the status page, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place. (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2) > (In reply to Brad Spencer from comment #0) > > Perhaps I was misusing this table, but I interpreted "supported since 7.1" > > to mean that if I compile against 7.1 headers, my code will remain ABI > > compatible against future versions of the library _and_ other code compiled > > against future versions of the headers. > > Absolutely not. Sorry. I was imprecise in my wording. I am not looking for or expecting any guarantees. I am under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the libstdc++ ABI (in a given configuration) has been stable for a very long time, and that generally integrators (such as Debian or Ubuntu, for example) provide versions of libstdc++ that are ABI-compatible with code compiled against previous versions. As per https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/abi.html this is reflected in the long-standing .so major version of 6. I know there are many caveats here, especially around the early introduction of pre-standardized features, etc. Is it correct to think that the _intention_ is that it is possible to configure the library to remain ABI compatible into the future until a conscious decision is made to introduce an ABI break? Or, if I ever run code compiled with GCC N against the library from GCC N+1, am I always at risk, with not even best efforts to lean on? I'm not asking you to do more. I just want to get a good understanding of the circumstances of ABI stability.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-10 19:44 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-02-10 13:07 [Bug libstdc++/99058] New: " bspencer at blackberry dot com 2021-02-10 18:49 ` [Bug libstdc++/99058] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-10 18:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-10 19:44 ` bspencer at blackberry dot com [this message] 2021-02-10 21:58 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-10 22:06 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-10 22:17 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-10 22:19 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-11 13:45 ` bspencer at blackberry dot com 2021-02-11 17:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-02-12 14:49 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-03-29 20:02 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-19 9:05 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-19 9:08 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-04-19 9:08 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-99058-4-COWaviVnpB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).