* CXXABI_TM_1 status
@ 2019-10-07 21:13 Matthieu DARBOIS
2019-10-08 8:45 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Matthieu DARBOIS @ 2019-10-07 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: libstdc++
Hi,
a new manylinux policy has been defined for python.
This includes a series of allowed symbol versions from libstdc++ as
can be seen here
https://github.com/pypa/auditwheel/pull/192#discussion_r331555495
We'd like confirmation that the CXXABI_TM_1 symbol version can be
safely included in this policy.
From what I understand from reading the sources, I'd say that it's
safe to include this symbol version and that it won't disappear
overnight (seems part of the a stable ABI since gcc 4.7.0).
Could we get confirmation please ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: CXXABI_TM_1 status
2019-10-07 21:13 CXXABI_TM_1 status Matthieu DARBOIS
@ 2019-10-08 8:45 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-10-08 19:29 ` Matthieu DARBOIS
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2019-10-08 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthieu DARBOIS; +Cc: libstdc++
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 22:13, Matthieu DARBOIS wrote:
>
> Hi,
> a new manylinux policy has been defined for python.
> This includes a series of allowed symbol versions from libstdc++ as
> can be seen here
> https://github.com/pypa/auditwheel/pull/192#discussion_r331555495
>
> We'd like confirmation that the CXXABI_TM_1 symbol version can be
> safely included in this policy.
> From what I understand from reading the sources, I'd say that it's
> safe to include this symbol version and that it won't disappear
> overnight (seems part of the a stable ABI since gcc 4.7.0).
Yes, it's part of the ABI baseline and can't be removed from
libstdc++.so without changing the SONAME of the library.
But why do you want to allow that symbol in manylinux binaries anyway?
Are people really using the experimental Transactional Memory
extensions in Python modules?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: CXXABI_TM_1 status
2019-10-08 8:45 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2019-10-08 19:29 ` Matthieu DARBOIS
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Matthieu DARBOIS @ 2019-10-08 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: libstdc++
On Tue. 8 Oct. 2019 at 10:45, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote :
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 22:13, Matthieu DARBOIS wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > a new manylinux policy has been defined for python.
> > This includes a series of allowed symbol versions from libstdc++ as
> > can be seen here
> > https://github.com/pypa/auditwheel/pull/192#discussion_r331555495
> >
> > We'd like confirmation that the CXXABI_TM_1 symbol version can be
> > safely included in this policy.
> > From what I understand from reading the sources, I'd say that it's
> > safe to include this symbol version and that it won't disappear
> > overnight (seems part of the a stable ABI since gcc 4.7.0).
>
> Yes, it's part of the ABI baseline and can't be removed from
> libstdc++.so without changing the SONAME of the library.
>
> But why do you want to allow that symbol in manylinux binaries anyway?
> Are people really using the experimental Transactional Memory
> extensions in Python modules?
I'm not sure anyone will be using Transactional Memory extensions in
Python modules but since CXXABI_TM_1 symbol version is part of the ABI
baseline there's also no reason to forbid its usage. Is there ?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-08 19:29 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-10-07 21:13 CXXABI_TM_1 status Matthieu DARBOIS
2019-10-08 8:45 ` Jonathan Wakely
2019-10-08 19:29 ` Matthieu DARBOIS
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).