3 ms·
> The committee chose an endorsement of indefinite ABI stability. It actually didn't. It chose to further delay an actual decision here. The effect is almost t
by UncleMeat 4y ago
> The committee chose an endorsement of indefinite ABI stability.
It actually didn't. It chose to further delay an actual decision here. The effect is almost the same but it means different things when it comes to understanding how the committee thinks and whether they largely agree or not.
- JonChesterfield 4y agoThe longer the committee holds onto the current status - that we neither promise stability nor will break it - the more users who value performance over never running a compiler will leave. The remaining members are increasingly likely to vote in favour of stability, despite that meaning performance overhead. By induction, the expected result should be that stability is chosen over performance in the future as well.
- UncleMeat 4y agoI think that is indeed true, but if that is the future I'd really like the committee to actually say it. Right now, the folks who really do depend on being able to link against code compiled a decade ago can't fully trust that the status quo will remain.