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 C16243861013; Wed, 10 Feb 2021 18:49:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C16243861013
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 18:49:56 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: documentation
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-99058-4-Qg4WqqkMVl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99058-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99058-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 18:49:56 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99058

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(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 compil=
ed
> against future versions of the headers.

Absolutely not.=