4 ms·

C++ really needs a standard ABI. None of these newer features really matter much without it. You still can't make libraries without compiling your code 10 dif

by snarfy 9y ago

C++ really needs a standard ABI. None of these newer features really matter much without it. You still can't make libraries without compiling your code 10 different times with a handful of compilers and flags and shipping all of the resulting binaries.

lallysingh 9y ago
There is one. Apologies for the ugly link, it goes to a pdf and I'm on a phone: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/article/402129/mpx-linux64-abi.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiR4IimoZ7aAhVM2IMKHSlbD3gQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0MVQdLNlkOBigLu5VDb82x https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/... 10 times? Do you mean 10 platforms vs 1 on something like Java?
- vinkelhake 9y ago
  I don't think C++ desperately needs a standard ABI, but ignoring that for a moment... The System V ABI doesn't really do anything for the people who asks for a standard C++ ABI. It's not enough to mandate how objects are laid out. People want the ability to define a library function that uses standard types - for example std::string - in the interface. To build a library with libstdc++ and link it with an application that has been built with libc++, there would (among other things) have to be a common string type that they agree on. Herb Sutter has done some work in this area, but I don't know the current status of it. https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n4028.pdf https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n4028.pdf
  - jcelerier 9y ago
    > To build a library with libstdc++ and link it with an application that has been built with libc++, there would (among other things) have to be a common string type that they agree on. well, then there would be a single standard library implementation. I think that would be the way to go : just put libc++ out of the std namespace and in a custom namespace, `st2` for instance, and use its types from everywhere. MSVC, GCC, whatever.
- gok 9y ago
  There is standardized calling conventions and symbol name mangling, but not the layout of STL types. Oh and even then, the ABI had to be changed when C++11 added rvalue references and move semantics.
favorited 9y ago
It was proposed a few years ago, but it went nowhere. It was proposed by Herb, which was honestly kinda surprising to me since MS breaks its C++ ABI all the time...

by snarfy 9y ago

lallysingh 9y ago

There is one. Apologies for the ugly link, it goes to a pdf and I'm on a phone: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/article/402129/mpx-linux64-abi.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiR4IimoZ7aAhVM2IMKHSlbD3gQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0MVQdLNlkOBigLu5VDb82x https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https:/... 10 times? Do you mean 10 platforms vs 1 on something like Java?

vinkelhake 9y ago
I don't think C++ desperately needs a standard ABI, but ignoring that for a moment... The System V ABI doesn't really do anything for the people who asks for a standard C++ ABI. It's not enough to mandate how objects are laid out. People want the ability to define a library function that uses standard types - for example std::string - in the interface. To build a library with libstdc++ and link it with an application that has been built with libc++, there would (among other things) have to be a common string type that they agree on. Herb Sutter has done some work in this area, but I don't know the current status of it. https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n4028.pdf https://isocpp.org/files/papers/n4028.pdf
- jcelerier 9y ago
  > To build a library with libstdc++ and link it with an application that has been built with libc++, there would (among other things) have to be a common string type that they agree on. well, then there would be a single standard library implementation. I think that would be the way to go : just put libc++ out of the std namespace and in a custom namespace, `st2` for instance, and use its types from everywhere. MSVC, GCC, whatever.
gok 9y ago
There is standardized calling conventions and symbol name mangling, but not the layout of STL types. Oh and even then, the ABI had to be changed when C++11 added rvalue references and move semantics.

favorited 9y ago

It was proposed a few years ago, but it went nowhere. It was proposed by Herb, which was honestly kinda surprising to me since MS breaks its C++ ABI all the time...