4 ms·
This BMI compiler dependency seems quite the limitation, surely this was a chance to tidy and unify name mangling. So we can’t import binaries across even minor
by LightFog 3y ago
This BMI compiler dependency seems quite the limitation, surely this was a chance to tidy and unify name mangling. So we can’t import binaries across even minor compiler version changes?!
- gumby 3y agoYou don’t want unified mangling because different compilers make different default decisions on laying out data. While that’s mostly been stamped out in C++ (mixed feelings about that), their library implementations are quite different, which Is a good thing.
- bluGill 3y agoI want unified mangling only if it comes with unified basic types. I want a string (maybe not std::string) that I can use not just in C++, but also rust, ada, python, C#, Java, and whatever other language is hot this week that is willing to provide some guarantees (this might include something like deterministic destruction which could toss some of the above out - something to debate). Likewise I want a list type (like std::vector) that I can put in arbitrary types and access by the above languages. The above quickly forces some form a struct type with a layout, and likely also functions (thus class), though we can debate how much we include.
- marwis 3y agoSeems like you want winrt