From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11626 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2002 07:37:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11614 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 07:37:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.lysator.liu.se) (130.236.254.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2002 07:37:36 -0000 Received: from proton.lysator.liu.se (proton.lysator.liu.se [130.236.254.69]) by mail.lysator.liu.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D8F82F4A5; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:37:34 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from localhost (magfr@localhost) by proton.lysator.liu.se (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA06529; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:37:34 +0200 (MEST) X-Authentication-Warning: proton.lysator.liu.se: magfr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:56:00 -0000 From: Magnus Fromreide To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Joe Buck , Richard Henderson , Nathan Sidwell , Andreas Jaeger , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , Goodman Joe Subject: Re: Results from Intel4s C++ ABI Testsuite In-Reply-To: <35210000.1026337826@warlock.codesourcery.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00494.txt.bz2 On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > It seems that for true C++ binary compatibility all implementers must > > agree on the type of size_t. Was this overlooked? > > Sort of. > > As Richard says, this is pretty much a property of the OS. If "int" and > "long" are the same, you can interchange the two for binary compatibility > purposes, but you'll never make your header files work right. > > And, of course, since "size_t" is just a typedef we can't mangle it > specially, even if we wanted to. > > It is true that if my OS uses "long" and yours uses "int" -- but they > are the same in all other ways -- then I can't mix and match C++ shared > objects from our two systems. I can still mix and match C++ shared > objects from any one of those systems, even if I used different > compilers to build them. For me it sounds as if this would be a nice thing to put in a platform ABI specification then. Is it in the IA-64 ABI spec that we are mostly using for ix86 as well?