3 ms·

Mixed mode is about the same function compiled with different evaluation semantics in different TUs, and it is legit. The only case they are wondering about is

by menaerus 11mo ago

Mixed mode is about the same function compiled with different evaluation semantics in different TUs, and it is legit. The only case they are wondering about is how deal with inlined functions and they suggest ABI extensions to support it during the link-time. None of what you said is an issue. > The possibility to have a have a well-formed program in which the same function was compiled with different evaluation semantics in different translation units (colloquially called “mixed mode”) raises the question of which evaluation semantic will apply when that function is inline but is not actually inlined by the compiler and is then invoked. The answer is simply that we will get one of the evaluation semantics with which we compiled. > For use cases where users require strong guarantees about the evaluation semantics that will apply to inline functions, compiler vendors can add the appropriate information about the evaluation semantic as an ABI extension so that link-time scripts can select a preferred inline definition of the function based on the configuration of those definitions.

Maxatar 11mo ago
Not sure what you mean by the term "legit". The entirety of the STL is inlined so it's always compiled in every single translation unit, including the translation units of third party dependencies. Also it's not me saying, it's literally the authors of the MSVC standard library and the GCC standard library pointing out these issues [1]: [1] https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P3878R0.html https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P3878R0.html
- menaerus 11mo ago
  Legit as in allowed and not an issue as you're trying to convey, ok? I read the paper if that wasn't already obvious from my comment. What you said is factually incorrect.
  - Maxatar 11mo ago
    Not sure I understand what point you're trying to dispute. It's not obvious at all that you read either my post or the paper I posted authored by the main contributors to MSVC and GCC about the issues mixed-mode applications present to the implementation of the standard library given that you haven't presented any defense of your position that addresses these issue. You seem to think that just declaring something "legit" and retorting "you are incorrect" is a sufficient justification. If this is the extent of your understanding it's a fairly good indication you do not have sufficient background on this topic and may be expressing a very strong opinion out of ignorance of this topic. It's not at all uncommon that those with the most superficial understanding of a subject express the strongest views of said topic [1]. Doing a cursory review of some of your recent posts, it looks like this is a common habit of yours. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    - menaerus 11mo ago
      I have literally copy-pasted the fragments from the paper you're referring to which invalidate your points. How is that not obvious? Did you read the paper yourself or you're just holding strong opinions yourself, as you usually do whenever there is something to backlash against C++? I'm glad you're familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect, this means there is some hope for you.

Maxatar 11mo ago

Not sure what you mean by the term "legit". The entirety of the STL is inlined so it's always compiled in every single translation unit, including the translation units of third party dependencies. Also it's not me saying, it's literally the authors of the MSVC standard library and the GCC standard library pointing out these issues [1]: [1] https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P3878R0.html https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P3878R0.html

menaerus 11mo ago
Legit as in allowed and not an issue as you're trying to convey, ok? I read the paper if that wasn't already obvious from my comment. What you said is factually incorrect.
- Maxatar 11mo ago
  Not sure I understand what point you're trying to dispute. It's not obvious at all that you read either my post or the paper I posted authored by the main contributors to MSVC and GCC about the issues mixed-mode applications present to the implementation of the standard library given that you haven't presented any defense of your position that addresses these issue. You seem to think that just declaring something "legit" and retorting "you are incorrect" is a sufficient justification. If this is the extent of your understanding it's a fairly good indication you do not have sufficient background on this topic and may be expressing a very strong opinion out of ignorance of this topic. It's not at all uncommon that those with the most superficial understanding of a subject express the strongest views of said topic [1]. Doing a cursory review of some of your recent posts, it looks like this is a common habit of yours. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  - menaerus 11mo ago
    I have literally copy-pasted the fragments from the paper you're referring to which invalidate your points. How is that not obvious? Did you read the paper yourself or you're just holding strong opinions yourself, as you usually do whenever there is something to backlash against C++? I'm glad you're familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect, this means there is some hope for you.