4 ms·
It seems like C++'s lack of an ABI would bite you way before any issues with libc++. (Or is there one now? I'm getting old.)
by ArbitraryLimits 13y ago
It seems like C++'s lack of an ABI would bite you way before any issues with libc++. (Or is there one now? I'm getting old.)
- plorkyeran 13y agoIn practice all of the compilers have arrived at a common ABI for each platform.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- HNLogInShit 13y agoWow, so we could now truly have "off-the-shelf" objects, which was going to be the future of software development in the '90s but never materialized?
- bstamour 13y agoTechnically C doesn't have a standard ABI either. Compilers just tend to use similar symbol names.
- pjmlp 13y agoTrue, what many perceive as the C ABI is actually the OS ABI. As most OSs tend to be written mostly in C, it is natural that C ABI == OS ABI. In the few cases where the OS was written in other languages, like the mainframe systems, the early 80's OS done in Pascal dialects (Mac OS), Modula-2 (Lillith), Assembly (MS-DOS/CP-M) and many others to list here, there was no C ABI to speak of.
- apaprocki 13y agoThat isn't true. IBM and Oracle's compiler do not share a compatible ABI with g++ or clang. Oracle is adopting the common ABI in Studio 13 and that's a pretty big deal.
- binarycrusader 13y agoC++ has an ABI that almost all vendors actively work towards conformance to called the Itanium C++ ABI (yes, it applies to other architectures too): This document was developed jointly by an informal industry coalition consisting of (in alphabetical order) CodeSourcery, Compaq, EDG, HP, IBM, Intel, Red Hat, and SGI. Additional contributions were provided by a variety of individuals. ... In general, this document is written as a generic specification, to be usable by C++ implementations on a variety of architectures. http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/cxxabi-1.83.html http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/cxxabi-1.83.html