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.

  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: link
Be 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).